Through the centuries (and today) artists have lovingly rendered depiction of a woman’s curves, including all the “jiggles.” In my many years spent in Life Drawing classes (where we would draw nude male and female models), many of our models “jiggled” all over. They were beautiful, “folds” and all. Contrary to what many people might assume, nude artists’ models (male or female) are not usually hot hardbodies. They are ordinary people, in varying sizes and ages.
Some models were more beautiful than others, but the most beautiful ones did not rely on a perfect, young, toned body for their beauty. It was through their graceful poses. Really, that’s what it was that made them great models.
I started taking Life Drawing classes when I was age 19. I soon learned to see the beauty in the many variations of the human form. Sure, some were not so beautiful (the almost anorexic, foul-mouthed prostitute with poor hygene didn’t get invited back to pose after a while, and the 300+ pound model, while beautiful in her own way, had lost some of her sexual appeal, I could see), but it was amazing how most models were quite beautiful.
Look at some random artist’s Life Drawing sketches. You can see that some of the models are not trim hardbodies, yet they are still beautiful. Because the human body is beautiful. I’m so glad that I’ve had the opportunity to learn this, thanks to these classes. I feel sorry for people who have such a narrow view of what beauty can be.
Whether you like jiggling rolls or not is a matter of taste in the end, and (of course) a matter of how well each particular “case” holds together, rolls or not. I certainly appreciate Venus figurines, but I would find it difficult to pronounce them attractive depictions of the female body. And I find most of (e.g.) Peter Paul Rubens’s work not really very arousing, though one or two pieces certainly are – and not for the beauty of the female form depicted, rather for the provocative and skillful work of the artist.
We also get back to mathematical proportions and health, which are considered pretty much universal standards of beauty in the female form: the 0.7 waist-to-hips ratio, and clear, healthy skin. A 300-pound model is highly unlikely to present the coveted 0.7 ratio, and may or may not have good skin; the anorexic/bulimic model likewise, with perhaps worse skin. And visceral adiposity in general, well I don’t see how anyone could find that attractive per se. But there are a whole lot of women in between who are underweight, overweight, or just right that do meet the fundamental evolutionary requirements for beauty. Plus there are women who may lack these fundamentals, but make up for them in other ways that may or may not be culturally specific: for example, some Pacific Islanders like are naturally BIG (not necessarily fat) people and see it as a beautiful thing, and quite a few Middle Eastern and African men often have a fascination with large women; an hourglass figure complete with nice breasts will be welcome pretty much everywhere; and in many cultures in Asia simply having extremely pale featureless skin will get you quite far.
It’s just not possible to proclaim fat or thin women to be uniquely beautiful in the end. However if we are talking about Western culture in general, then a decently padded body with little in the way or rolls and that is fit and moderately athletic seems to carry the day, in real life if not in fashion and television. I don’t think this is a bad ideal to strive for, given the health problems being posed by overweight and obesity across much of the planet.
I appreciate the art class testimony, but you are talking about the talent of posing. And who is famous for posing? Models. Fashion models. And most of them are thin. I don’t see how historic precedence has anything to do with the idea of health and what we consider attractive today. Larger women of old were considered attractive not because of their bodies but because of their power and wealth. Now we know what makes a healthy person. Muscle, but not too much. Some fat, but again, not too much. A woman who is healthy will always be thin, compared to what most people these days think of as average. She won’t be anorexic by any means. The powerful and wealthy today want to live longer, so they take care of their bodies, if they are smart. So get off of this black and white argument. Nobody likes skeletons. But very few people like large women either. Naturally it’s what’s inside that counts most, but that’s not what this discussion is about. Why do women want to be thin (as opposed to skinny or overweight)? Because it’s healthy. Because they want to be thought of as attractive. Because men know that trim and toned is healthy and they want a healthy mate.
You call that posing? That’s just walking with a pout. You have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about, do you? Here’s some example of “posing.” (Warning: artistic nudity—may not be work safe.) Do fashion models do that? No.
If by “large” you mean 300 pounds, well sure, as far as sexual attractiveness goes, the percentage of people who find that attractive is small. When you get that large that “0.7 waist-to-hips” ratio that Abe was talking about is lost. I can buy a lot of Abe’s comments, because of course it’s true that when you get past a certain point, you’re unhealthily overweight. But I don’t think that some extra padding in the belly or hips, or some (God Forbid) “folds” makes someone unhealthily overweight.
I cannot speak for all men. Heck, I’m not even a man at all. But I doubt that you speak for all men either.
I’ve got some more examples of artistic figure drawings here. (Same work-safe artistic nudity warning applies to this link as well.) Some of these paintings (which I think are asolutely awesome works, by the way), are exagerrated and distorted to some extent, but you get the idea from many of the pictures that the typical artistic model is not always lithe and slim. She often represents the “average” woman, who actually has hips and a belly. She’s obviously got more flesh on her than you describe as being “attractive.” Here’s a specific example of a fleshed-out figure (OMG! Look! There’s folds!) that many artists (and I’m guessing some men) would not consider gross or hideous.
I had that ratio when I was at my all time highest weight, and still do. If you are built to have that ratio, you are going to have it even at a high weight because the excess fat you carry will settle in proportion to your skeletal structure.
There are exceptions, of course. I imagine there is a point at extremely high weights where porportion goes out the window. But don’t assume that just because someone is large that they automatically don’t have that ratio. Some do, some don’t.
I know what you mean. I have a “fat hourglass” figure, which means that I have a distinct waistline (I have no idea what the waist-hip ratio is). You’ve probably read about the different body types: “H” or straight up and down with not much waistline, “Apple” or the heavier waist and belly with slim legs, the “A” or wider in the hips w/ narrower shoulders, and the “Hourglass” or balanced hips and bust with a waist definition. If you’re an Hourglass, you’re going to still be an Hourglass at size 10 and size 20. But at size 30 (which might be a 300+ lb. woman)? You’re probably starting to lose hourglass shape (though it’s probably still there in a subtle way). But I’m sure there are even exceptions to that.
Also, a size 20 Hourglass is probably going to look somewhat “smaller” than a size 20 Apple of the same height, for instance.
I don’t now, that’s news to me as well. But Jessica Simpson is close to perfect. (Except for a while back when she lost a bit too much weight and didn’t look as good.)
Well, normally excessive weight gain brings about (in addition to an increase in fat tissue in the “problem areas” like the thighs) a thickening of the trunk that impacts the 0.7 ratio (if it was there to begin with). Overweight women (beyonf a few pounds) often find their waistlines expanding, which obviously raises the ratio closer to 1. Good skeletal structure can help stave off the increase in ratio for a while, but in the majority of cases the waistline and hips do not increase correspondingly.
Ah, I have an opportunity to hijack this thread a little with something about sewing: Since I sew my clothes now and then, I’m familiar with sewing measurement charts. As you can see from this measurement chart, a size 6 (in sewing patterns) has the coveted .7 waist-to-hip ratio. You can get up to size 20 and be at .77, (which in my estimation, isn’t too radically far off), but the larger you get, the higher that waist-to-hip ratio goes. In the upper range of sizes the waist gets gradually wider in relation to the hips. (This assumes, of course, that the woman’s figure is a straight size 10, or 20, or 30 or whatever. Few women are.)
However, sewing sizes and store-bought (aka ready-to-wear) sizes differ greatly. Usually you add at least two sizes up or perhaps 3 from your read-to-wear size to get your sewing size. I could wear a size 14 in read-to-wear but I was told to cut a size 20 pattern. The waist in the size 20 patterns was often kind of loose, so probably my waist is a little smaller than that size.
I can assure you that most size 14 RTW women are not ignored by men. Same for many size 16 and up ladies. I am not saying that all men will find women at that size attractive, but to make a blanket statement that “men don’t find that attractive” (as a few here have said) just isn’t so.
For example, I doubt that this woman is treated like she could never be attractive, nor would these women.
Not really. Like anyone else, Maxim has to try to anticipate what the readers want, not necessarily wait to be told, and they won’t always get it right. I distinctly remember a lot of guys laughing at the idea of Avil Lavigne being a sex symbol. Maybe I’m out of touch but I think her fanbase is teenaged girls.
(And as I recall, GQ got Lindsay Lohan and her enormous fake boobs that month, so maybe Maxim was just going for Plan B.)
I know very few men who think of beauty as demonstrative of a healthy mate. I myself am persuaded that evolution has evolved the powerful emotional links between beauty and, well, um, a man’s emotions for this purpose. It makes me think the perhaps my reaction is in fact a survival mechanism. However, I think it is a bit disengenuous of us to suggest that we are interested in healthy mates. It would be more honest to say pleasurable sexual partners. And when you recognize that the most pleasurable thing about a sexual partner is their ability to “enjoy the sexual act”, you may find that physical apearance takes on a whole new meaning. A woman’s “hotness” comes far more from what I call talent and attitude. You can’t measure these things with a hips to ass ratio, but they can be noticed. Look through some of yosemite’s etchings*. She is right about the poses. They portray a knowledge about the posers bodies and how to use them which is very sexy indeed.
Oh, you’re welcome! But just so it’s clear, the examples I showed before aren’t my drawings. They are very awesome, and I certainly had a lot of fun searching for life drawing art on the web! There is so much good stuff out there.
But, I do have an example of a quick ink sketch of a woman who has a few “folds,” and I don’t think she looks too bad.
The optimal range of the WTH ratio is actually something like 0.68 - 0.72. I think 0.77 would be too high to be classed as a 0.7, besides if you rounded it off, it would clearly end up as a 0.8.
I won’t even try to figure out women’s clothing, Yosemite! I’ve seen women who were clearly and obviously substantially overweight fit in a size 12 or 14, and I’ve seen hot voluptuous women not necessarily overweight fit in a size 12 or 14 too. Different body types, same size clothing – I could never figure that out.
As for being attracted to “healthy” signals, this is pretty much undeniable, the 0.7 ratio is almost entirely universally appreciated by all men (with a very few isolated tribes being the exceptions) and that ratio is indicative of good reproductive health. The only other universal beauty standard is clear healthy skin and hair, which is also an unmistakeable signal of good health.
What keeps you together with someone may be something else entirely, of course. And in addition to the above two standards there are several other variables of attraction from culture to culture, ethnic group to ethnic group, and even individual to individual. Many of them are solidly hard-wired in both sexes.
Attraction is based substantially on sexual signals. One signal that skinny girls send out is that they are not pregnant (they have completely flat bellies) and may mate successfully on the spot. This to my knowledge is the only sexual signal that significantly overweight women may not compete directly with. In every other respect things are much less clear. For example, long legs are a signal of post-adolescence and therefore fertility (and therefore sexiness), but heavier women may give an impression of having shorter legs even though they’re walking around on 36-inchers; this leaves the slimmer girl with the same length legs with a clear advantage, unless they are so skinny that the legs look child-like. And overweight women often find that the effects on their breasts are most beneficial, but then again the breasts of well-endowed slimmer women are visually amplified by their smaller frames. And so on. It’s clearly a very mixed bag.
I’m still not clear on which norms are dictated by the fashion and television industries, and which are the result of super-sexual competition and have simply found their way to these industries (where they are then magnified and propagated).
Well, if you want to be anal-retentive about it, sure. But some of the “plus size” models that I linked to before probably have something around a .77 hip-waist ratio, and I doubt that a few pecentage points has made that much difference to most people who look at them. They probably have their fair share of male admirers (though I am not saying that all men would find them attractive). Also, it’s quite possible to take, for instance, a classic size 20 (in sewing sizes), but if they are an inch or two smaller in the waist, and they’re nearing that .7 hip-waist-ratio.
I know. When I was a size 14 I knew another another size 14 lady who was shorter than me, with a thick middle (a classic “H” shape), and who weighed a lot less—a lot less, and she looked quite different from me. It was weird to think that we were the same size.
.7 and .77 are very different, statistically speaking. One is a C-/D+, while the other is a C+, for instance.
If you really honestly equate 70% and 77% as being basically the same, then either you don’t fully grasp statistics, or are just being needlessly defensive. It’s okay to be 77%, not that you are. It’s also somewhat attractive. It’s just not as attractive as 70%.
Let me put it this way: 5’7" is 70% of 8 feet. 6’2" is 77% of 8 feet. 6’2", while being only “a few percentage points” difference, is a huge difference in the attractiveness of a male when compared to 5’7". Works the same with the WTH ratio.
Really? A huge difference? Your saying not only that size matters, but that a 7 percent difference is a huge difference?
I agree with you that 7% is a very statistically significant. But I’m not sure that it is really the sort of huge difference you suggest in this context.
Sigh. You’re stalking statistics, I’m talking human figures. I’m saying that an inch or two around the waist of a size 20 (sewing sizes) woman isn’t going to make a drastic difference in her appearance, so yes, in that context, it’s “anal retentive” to make a big deal of it. Not saying that it’s not noticeable at all, but it’s not going to be that huge of a deal to most people looking.
Or, are you saying that a size 20 woman with about 2" less in the waist than another size 20 woman (all other things about them being equal) is going to look as dramatically different as several inches in height between two men? Because I really doubt that’s the case.
Yeah. And just to stave off any more anal-retentiveness (;)), I did the math and realize that a strict .7 hip-waist ratio in a size 20 woman would make her actually 3" less in the waist than a “traditional” size 20 woman (31 inches instead of 34). Two inches difference would be .72. Two or three inches isn’t nothing, but there is no way that it compares to the difference that you see in a 5’7" man and a 6’2" man.
Unless they are wearing fitted garments, a 2-3" difference in hip/waist of two otherwise identical size 20 women would be fairly subtle to almost unnoticeable. I’m guessing that it wouldn’t register that much with most people (except for the women themselves and their catty friends. ;)).
Since I sew my clothes now and then, I’m familiar with sewing measurement charts. As you can see from 