Our obsession with numbers is what I find a problem. This is true of both men and women.
A good friend of mine is 6 feet tall. If her weight gets within 10lbs of 200, this causes her great distress, largely because (I think) she feels this is such an unnaceptable number for a woman to weigh. Nevermind her stomach’s flat and her waist-to-hip is .68. No woman looks good at 200lbs, right?
I would give my left tit to look as good as she does in a bikkini, (or any clothes, really), and she’s healthy and strong. There’s no reason her weight should bother her, except that number.
I’ve been considering a theory that the extreme thinness many women are aiming for (and thier obsession with a particular number on the scale) is making the obesity problem worse.
An example: My mom is 5’2". She weighed, at one point 190lbs. She would diet and regain, diet and regain, because she felt that she had to be thin to be successful (as in, not fat), and when she got to a weight she couldn’t get past, she eventually gave up. Because 140 wasn’t good enough, so why bother? Eventually, she met a particular doctor who convinced her that being 15lbs overweight was way, way better than being 65lbs overweight, and she is now is much better health.
My point is, if society tells us that being a few pounds overweight makes you “fat”, then why bother at all? If there’s no middle ground between being Sara Michelle Gellar and being disgusting, for most of us there’s no reason not to have that Big Mac. (I don’t, by the way, think this is limited to weight. In many areas our society, perfection is merely the minimum standard)
Without wanting to change anyone’s personal tastes or impose science on your preferences, this now becomes a matter of academic study.
Yes, there is, without the need to be anal about it, a somewhat substantial difference between 0.7 and 0.77, just as there is a difference between 0.72 and 0.81, or 70% and 77%. The optimal range I cited earlier was 0.68 - 0.72, and it is not uncommon to hear that maximum attraction is obtained with a WHR of 0.7 or slightly lower. If I recall correctly this has remained stable since the original landmark study: Singh, D. “Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio”. *J Pers Soc Psychol *1993; 65: 293307 (link to abstract)
Said that, women in a considerable WHR range, between 0.6 and 0.8, are considered to be sexually healthy and therefore suitable mates. But the ideal attractive feature remains 0.7 or slightly lower – and WHR is negatively correlated to estrogen (and positively correlated to testosterone), so the higher the estrogen, the lower the ratio. (Much of the female body is built like this, from long legs to full breasts to the small female jaw etc).
It is not a question of being able to consciously see the difference between 0.7 and 0.75 candidates; this response is in all likelihood an unconscious hardwired one, just like the preference in both sexes for bilateral symmetry (you don’t examine and measure that both sides of someone’s face are equally formed before you pronounce him/her attractive, you just seem to assess symmetry subconsciously). Also, do not underestimate how thoroughly visually hardwired male humans are; certain narrowly defined visual stimuli light up the male brain like a christmas tree and flood it with dopamine and other substances.
The 0.7 ratio results from the so-called ideal fat distribution. It is not, as noted, necessarily restricted to women of a certain size, but it is indicative that a woman is in good reproductive health and will be able to bear children (likewise, bilateral symmetry indicates good developmental health).
I don’t think too many people will like this, but there is more to the story. A few years ago, it was suggested that WHR may be less useful a measurement of sexual attractiveness than… BMI!!
I think there may be some problems with it, firstly the sample is quite limited (40 university students, I would say their exposure to beer commercials alone might impair the results), secondly I do not know how well this paper was received nor whether the results were ever replicated, but it is nonetheless very interesting. Not good news for the lovers of Big Macs (all jokes aside, love thyself and stay away from Big Macs!).
That really is an unhealthy obsession with numbers, numbers the importance of which is entirely psychological. Weight is just part of the picture, your friend the amazon has to consider several more factors in addition to what the scales say, we’ve been discussing as much this whole thread (or at least, I have!).
I can believe this—these numbers will mean either a subtle curve or really curvy, but either way, an “hourglass” curve. I am sure that the .7 hip/waist ratio is optimal, but I don’t think it’s that huge a deal, or that a slightly higher ratio turns an otherwise attractive woman into a cow (which I know is not what you’re saying).
Well, far be it for me to dispute science. However, I’ll stick by my notion that a few inches difference in the waistline of a size 20 woman is probably not going to register, at least on the surface, as that big of a deal to most people. Unless the women are wearing close-fitting clothes, the difference is going to be subtle. This sort of body-skimming outfit, or this one (as long as it’s not too tight-fitting, as it usually is not), will probably be able to cleverly conceal the difference in hip-waist. (Patterns graphics from Vogue Patterns.)
With only 40 participants, all college students, yes, I’d find that study questionable. However, if you think I’m going to dispute the idea that thinner women are considered more attractive (in general) than fatter or fuller-figured women, no, absolutely not. There is no question that this is the case, in general, just like there is no question that, in general, women prefer taller men. (And I say this as a woman who has never seen what the big deal was about men’s height and find a lot of short guys to be absolute hotties.)
All I’m disputing are these blanket statements about “no woman looks good at 200 pounds” (Obsidian’s friend I’m sure loves hearing that, as do many of the pretty plus-sized models). Also, the idea that bigger women just flat out aren’t attractive—to barely anyone—which has been intimated by others on this thread. That’s not true. Look at these women again and this woman. I don’t believe for a second that they aren’t attractive to a sufficient amount of men. I won’t say “most men” or “all men,” but I don’t believe that they are only attractive to some small minority of guys with a fat fetish either. I believe that a pretty decent percentage of men would find these women quite lovely, even though their BMI higher than the “ideal” and their hip-waist ratio is probably above .7.
You have it backwards. If I show you a picture of a woman (or man…whatever your preference) do you find that person attractive because you find them attractive or because they are on the cover of a magazine? Beauty is more universal than you think. Most people tend to be attracted to symetrical features for example.
What the media does do is set unrealistic expectation levels so that people think that the images they see are the norm instead of the exception. All of a sudden, your girlfriend isn’t hot enough because she doesn’t look like a model. Your friends aren’t cool enough because they aren’t witty and clever like the Friends crew. Your job sucks because you aren’t traveling all over eating in fine restaurants every night (well, I am and my job still sucks. What the media shows you are good looking people making power deals over 3 martini lunches, not shleping through airports and building spreadsheets until 2am).
yosemite - those women are pretty enough but they are still on the heavy side for my tastes. A good WHR does not mean that a woman will still be attractive at 200 lbs and beyond.
Besides, there are plenty of women in Hollywood who are not Sarah Michelle Gellers and Jennifer Love Hewitts. Drew Barrymore and Liv Tyler aren’t exactly waify.
I’ve been pretty close to this size all my life (the menopause 8 is plaguing me now). I was told I looked healthy and great. And I did. It depends on the person. There is no standard that applies to everyone. I’ve also found that if someone said I was unhealthy, they tended to be fat. For what it’s worth.
I’m not surprised that they are on the “heavy side” for your tastes, and that is fine. Not everyone is going to find the same exact type of woman attractive, nor should they be expected to.
However, since you say that they are “pretty enough,” I assume that you would not be shocked or bewildered if someone you knew was dating a woman who looked like one of these girls? It wouldn’t be beyond the realm of comprehension that some other men might find these girls very attractive, right?
Well, after a certain point, a woman will get very large and fewer and fewer people will consider her figure to be to their tastes. However, don’t be too quick to speak for other men, and don’t be so quick to assume that 200 pounds is some “point of no return.” It wouldn’t shock me to discover that many women–ones that look every bit as attractive as the plus-sized models that I linked to–are 200 pounds and beyond. Like Obsidian’s friend, at 6 feet tall and her flat stomach–if she hits 200 pounds or above, she doesn’t automatically turn into a toad. 200 is just a number.
I really don’t think that people find Queen Latifa’s APPEARANCE attractive. I get the impression that people are more attracted to her attitude and talent.
Speak for yourself pale-face. Queen Latifa is a very sexually attractive woman. A big part of her attraction and the attractiveness of most women is that she is comfortable with her own body. Queen Latifa is a WOMAN, while the people that you’ve been raving about are starved young girls with breast implants.
Now there’s nothing wrong with finding that attractive, but lets be real here. You’re being fed a ‘look’ that doesn’t really exist. It’s easy to be 'thin" when you’re sixteen and the “firm” sticks 2 lumps of salient in your chest.
…but are they sexy?
Me…I’ll take a 35 year old full figured woman who enjoys being in her own skin, over a skinny 16 year old with breast implants any day.
Nope, she is HOT! and tend I prefer tall, thin but not skinny, pale, brunette women. I do not listen to her records and can’t recall following her as an actress. I know who she is because I stopped to find out while channel surfing and saw her in various contexts. Her looks, her body, and how she carries herself got my atttention.
Really, a lot of these women that many find too fat to be attractive are hot to many, many others.
Oh great. Now everyone knows their WTH ratio. Another damn number to worry about. I thought I had enough with my bra size, my weight, my BMI, my body fat percentage–now I gotta’ do more fractions?
Is .72 really the upper limit? I thought a 36-26-36 was a classic hourglass figure. That would be .722222… or the upper limit. I know women with those measurements, and they’re quite curvy. To get the ratio any lower, they’d have to be either extremely hippy or get a 19th century corset-induced waistline.
no, as stated earlier the “upper limit” would be 0.8 (the lower is 0.6). Within this range women of different body types are considered attractive for their reproductive prowess. The optimal ratio for attractiveness, as scientifically tested in several experiments, is considered 0.7 (and I have read that the optimal range is 0.68 - 0.72, though I have less information about that). 0.7 is not an arbitrary number but the result of visually testing men of all cultures and origins for their responses to a variety of female bodies (including men from places where “big is in”). It is not uncommon to find women below 0.72, though they may perhaps not be the norm in a country with record numbers of overweight and obesity. See the linked paper “Visual cues to female attractiveness” for how BMI may provide another indication for attractiveness.
But the discussion is degenerating by the minute into “I like xyz and that’s a lot better than your standard” – not exactly a fact-based debate.
This isn’t, as far as I can see, a thread about proving that big women (or slim women, in the case of Holmes) cannot be attractive. In individual cases, personal preference will always win over statistical generalizations such as optimal WHR or BMI or hair/eye colour or whatever. However, to find out why most women want to be slim I think it’s very useful to look at the in-built attraction mechanisms of the species, that (as it happens) tend to favour slightly women who are not overweight (I say slightly because it is possible --at least up to a point – for a woman to be overweight and retain an attractive WRH indicating abundant estrogen, reproductive capability, curvaciousness, sexiness, etc.).
Well that’s kind of the point. Most people like to be accepted for who they are. I think most of us would generally like to be in the mainstream of what is considered “attractive” and not feel as though the only people who would be attracted to us are statistical outliers.
The point is, who says that most women want to be slim? According to some here most men want slim women. Slim being a subjective term. Most people don’t live in the cities, where thinness could be considered desirable…yet these thin women are spending millions of dollars in breast implants or even ass implants; in many cases replacing tissue that they dieted away.
There is something wrong with a woman who diets to a size 2, then gets a ‘d’ cup implant, lip enhancement and cheek implants…(you pick). Clearly she’s aware of what a woman’s figure is supposed to look like, but has gotten trapped in the lie that is Hollywood.
The ‘models’ that are supposed to be representative of desire are often teenage girls, whose thinness is that of youth…even the ‘rock stars’ are caught by the national enquire in candid poses ‘out of shape’ yet they are still not overweight. They too are full of implants, why?
What you are witnessing is cultural, you don’t see this nearly as much in African, Latin and East Indian communities. Why? They don’t want to be attractive to most men?
I call bullshit. You leave the city and go to rural America and try this “slim” stuff and see what happens.
Women are brain-washed at an early age by people who are lying to them to sell product and the sooner they figure that out, the better.
Prisoner6655321 and Holmes might be on to something about Queen Latifah’s overall attitude, poise, and talent attracting men. But let’s not forget, she also has a cute face. A very attractive face, actually.
A big-nosed, horse-faced, or beady-eyed woman with her body proportions probably wouldn’t be quite as appealing, even if she had the same style, poise and musical talent.
Some men are ass men, others tit men. I don’t mind those, no sir, but I’m more a face man than anything else. I’ll take a heavier-than-average girl with a nice face over the latest butter-face Hollywood skank like Paris Hilton any day.
Almost every “hottie” you see on college campuses, at the mall or where have you would look at best average, and at worse ugly, if you stripped her of her makeup. Girls nowadays over-makeup themselves, and unfortunately people seem not to mind it.
And a lot of larger women are considered attractive by more than just an eensy, weensy percentage. Going back to those plus-sized models that I linked to before: do you really believe that they are only admired by precious few? Just a tiny percentage of men? Would you assume that they barely get any male attention? Or could you accept the possibility that plenty of men consider them attractive, and would, in fact, be quite pleased get a date with one of these girls?
Well, most of the evidence in Western society indicates that women say this themselves, just to begin with (and vast segments of other societies too, including and especially the population heavyweights India and China). Why otherwise is the American weight loss industry worth over US$ 40 billion, and the global one a staggering 240 billion? Men and women are roughly equally likely to be overweight or obese, but customers for weight loss products and programs are more likely to be female. According to materials already mentioned by someone else, it is women who hold themselves to a stricter standard of slimness in beauty than men do! All this points to a very clear answer, that a prevalent standard of beauty is slim before large in women as well as in men. If you yourself differ, that’s great, I certainly have no problem with that (nor am I discussing my own preferences here, just the macro situation itself). But it’s not wise to position one’s personal predilections as the standard en vogue.
Aside from that, it is generally healthier to be slim, with low visceral adiposity, and within conventional ranges such as BMI “normal” rather than to be overweight, etc., not least for the several health hazards that high BMI values are correlated with (cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc.). This has all been discussed in the previous two pages, with studies and statistics already provided.
Yosemite: I don’t believe anyone is saying that larger women cannot absolutely under any circumstance be attractive. Not at all! However I will venture the guess that for the majority of people – given the standards we have been discussing – larger women would tend to be perceived as less attractive.
let me provide an illustrative example not to be taken as anything other than an illustration based on entirely arbitrary and made-up numbers. The typical fashion model has a BMI of I think around 18, which I don’t believe a substantial majority actually finds attractive. The study I linked earlier identified 20 as the most attractive BMI value to men, so let’s use that. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that 5 out of a group of 10 women with a BMI of 20 are “attractive” to a sample group of 100 men; another group of 10 women with BMI of, let’s say, 27 (25 and up being overweight) is brought in and we see that 3 out of 10 women are considered attractive to the audience. Then a group of women with BMI of 32 (30+ being obese) is brought in, and only 2 out of 10 are deemed to be attractive by the average male sample (obviously not by Holmes or pervert!).
This is just an example with numbers pulled out of the air, but I wanted to explain that by no means does being heavy necessarily equal being unattractive. I think I have been saying as much since page 1 of this thread actually, ultimately it all depends on the person (and to be fair, for every blistering hot large woman you link I could probably link an unattractive large one). I do however think that being overweight or obese does decrease the chance of being considered attractive, at least for a general audience these various tests and experiments are based on.
The same damn thing happens in the boonies as it does in city, dear. Being a fat woman in America is taboo anywhere you live. I was chugging Slim Fast when I was 12 years old in BFE, Kentucky, and by that age that was probably my 50th diet.
In my experience, being fat in a small town is WORSE than being fat in a city (my hometown has about 1200 people, the whole county, about 8k). Once you are stuck with a label (ANY label) in a small town, it doesn’t matter what you do. Get thin, you’ll still be “the fat one” from your high school class. Till the day you die. You can be the most wonderful person in the world, but if you’re fat, you’re defective. Small town people can be, by far, the most hateful people on the planet. New Yorkers have a reputation for being assholes (I’m not saying it’s true, I’m just saying it’s a stereotype) but they are amateurs compared to what goes on in Anytown, USA.
When I moved to WV, I was astounded at how free I was from being labeled. I don’t know what it is about people here but they seem more willing to get to know you before judging you. I’m not sure if it’s a city thing (if you can call 50,000 people a “city”) or if it’s a WV thing.
