Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

duduong — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:32:23 GMT

Of course, hourglass figures do not signify fertility directly. What they were really associated with is youthfulness, particularly before the invention of exercise machines, Considering that ancient human have a life expectancy in the high 20s, it is no wonder that the male have evolved to prefer teenage mates.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

midnight05 — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:44:10 GMT

My hourglass figure takes a week to go from top to bottom.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

VoiceOne — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:48:32 GMT

Very Interesting

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

ridahoan — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:22:37 GMT

This is all far too complex to be argued with any rationality either for or against an evolutionary cause for men preferring an hourglass shape, if indeed they do. I do, and I don't know why. Cashdan sounds well-reasoned, and indeed there may be evolutionary reasons to preferring less competitive women in certain circumstances, and more competitive (and androgenic) in others.

If we are concerned about influencing feelings of self-worth, it might be pointed out that similar arguments are made regarding women preferring broad shouldered, strong-chinned, and narrow hipped men.

Regarding the age argument comment, doubtful, such reasoning is based on a misunderstanding of life expectancy. Indeed, a 30 year old women in ancient times might well be expected to live longer than a 15 year old, and definitely longer than an infant. Life expectancy is largely influenced by death in infancy and death in child-bearing. A similar phenomenon occurs today -- check out the mortuary tables and you'll find that an 80 year old black man is likely to live much longer than an 80 year old white man, even though life expectancy for a black man is much lower than a white.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

olderwiser — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:36:15 GMT

The popularity of football and basketball among sports fans and the tons of snacks eaten and high calorie drinks imbibed while watching these games shown worldwide 24 hours a day has led to the popularity of girls shaped like footballs and basketballs, seen much more often now wobbling between the grocery aisles restocking the larder. Lardy, lardy, mercy me.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

blueblue — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:35:27 GMT

"Can we please stop telling young women that if they don’t meet the hourglass ideal there is something wrong with them"

Erm when did that happen. Women are usually "told" to be attractive and healthy. The role models usually shown in the media are poorly nutritioned and photo altered supermodels or actresses.

An hourglass figure, if shown, is usually used as an excuse for calling someone fat (implied unhealthy and unattractive"

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

rioguy — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:54:14 GMT

The hourglass figure is practically dead in America and I'd even settle for the cylindrical shape that some women carry but the problem in America today is one that we should stop hiding behind the "love thyself" fascade because it won't fit. Women today are more likely to be 36-42-36 and that's not an hourglass its an oval. Forget about .07 differentials. Stand on any street corner in America except for maybe Miami or Los Angeles and watch the flotila of women whose waist sizes have long surpassed their busts or hips. We're talking about women in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50's who have long ago decided that they would forego exercise and just eat their way through Life. There was a time when EVERY starlet had an hourglass figure and the vast majority of women strived to look like that. Now it looks as if the predictions of the movie WALL-E are coming true. A society filled with rolly-pollies who can't see their feet.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

jesuguru2 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:13:20 GMT

Recent medical studies actually show that waist (belly) fat is the worst kind for your health for both men and women. So regardless of whether men desire women who are "strong and risk-prone" (attractive to me) or "assertive and dominant" (unattractive to me), both men and women should desire whatever weight ratio will lead to better health - physically, mentally, relationally.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

nawawimohamad — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:17:51 GMT

The main purpose of having a nice body if for health reason and for being comfortable with oneself and being presentable to others in our daily life. But it is just plain stupid to have a nice body to entice others or to be alluring or just for show.For what?What ever elated feelings would just be a transitional gain in self-esteem which is all in the minds. Only small minds need this kind of sacrifice for self-esteem.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

kaywa — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:26:27 GMT

I dont think any men will let a study or scientist convince them what type of figure is attractive. The hour glass figure prevails since the dawn of time, its is the female shape in contrast to the male form. From what I've observed girls aren't trying to shrink their waist for a big hip to waist ratio but rather for the current waif trend that has prevailed for the last 20 years. The hourglass figure sounds like a healthier trend then this try to stave myslef into tiny jeans

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

olderwiser — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:28:52 GMT

Vanity du jour. Before Missionaries came to Hawaii, the largest, fattest, roundest females were considered to be the most beautiful. We are simply evolving as we always have and setting new shapes as the ideal figure. This will leave those girls who can eat ice cream all day and stay skinny in the hourglass backwash of feminine admiration. It turns out that "change" is not just a political exercise. We get tired of the same old same old. Get fat. Get happy. Buy a Rubens painting and hang it on the wall. His girls and babies were all fat.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

1easylay — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:56:01 GMT

Puuuuuullllllleeeeeeeezzzzzeeeeeeeeeee.

Uh, Ummm. I'm an older(ish) woman and I know that this is bunk.

Take any normal testosterone driven, red blooded man and place him in a room with Jessica Alba and Roseanne Barr and see whom he goes for..........................

Roseanne is a wonderful woman and has done much for us, but even I would prefer Jessica

Alba to her anyday.

Sorry, some things just are.......................and this is one of them

Just like we like diamonds as it's in our DNA, the men have their TNA and hopefully will

never change,

I was hot once, ya know?

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

fm8200 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:47:41 GMT

The issues brought up by this study are important.

Namely: A human should be valued for who they are and how much good they contribute to the world. Health and beauty are secondary to good-will and support.

Also, apparently women with more "androgenic" bodies tend to have more aggressive qualities/hormone profiles, which help them function as providers and work in competitive environments. That is valuable.

But, this has been taken for something it isn't. For example, like it or not, those Japanese women cited are the healthiest-longest lived women in the world. Just about every study we have indicates that the lower an animal's body weight (including humans, most likely), the greater their chances of good health and longevity (look up "Calorie Restriction" if you don't believe me). Furthermore, a lower waist-to-hip ratio is indicative of greater fertility. Those men who say they value a hard working woman aren't saying they don't visually prefer the lower waist-to-hip ratio, they are saying they value the woman for more than her looks... which is a good thing. But don't take it for what it isn't.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

cleoj — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:38:12 GMT

I'm not sure the article says that men prefer women who are obese, just that they may prefer ladies who don't have the classic hourglass .7 waist to hip ratio.

Personally, I have no idea what my dimensions are. I don't frankly care what men think about it either. The only thing I do care about is having a healthy shape.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

Vigilance — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:04:20 GMT

I don't think body type makes too much difference. It's health and vigor and personality and a host of other things.

I've been attracted to skinny women, chubby women, short women, tall women, women with long and short hair and otherwise. Women are attractive when they're healthy, smiling, confident, when they smell good and take care of themselves. I've known women who were far from "classic" beauties who exuded confidence and charisma that attracted men from across a room.

Obesity is not attractive because it's seriously unhealthy - when it's genuine obesity, and not a misclassification of an athletic body as an overweight one. Our government standards don't distinguish between muscle weight and fat. Serious obesity causes heart problems, lung problems, stroke, lethargy, and many more. But "chubby" isn't obese. Women can have love handles and be sexy beyond mind or measure.

I agree with Sharon. Let's get rid of the anorexic ideals and the heroin chic and start telling girls that they can eat real food again and carry an extra five or ten pounds if they happen to and that men will still want them. Even the earliest fertility statues found didn't look anything like our modern fantasies.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

ScaryAndDerangedAttachment — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:58:52 GMT

People have different tastes, turn-ons, and sexual identities. To what extent it can be called "genetic" or predetermined, I don't know, though I believe genes to be the most governing factor. Studies have explored the effects of varying hormone levels on preferences, early biases towards "attractive" faces, and the biology of sexual preference (fruit flies were able to be made "gay" or "straight" based on flipping a gene, for example). Regardless of where these varying preferences come from (I don't believe mass media has as much of an influence as people try to make out to have), it is obvious that these varying preferences exist, so therefore people should feel less pressure to reach some singular ideal. But regardless, there should be emphasis on being "yourself" and what you want to be and feel confident being.

I agree with the comments that are trying to fight the pressure to look a certain way, rather than to be healthy-- we truly do come in different sizes, bone structures, hormone profiles, and backgrounds. Some women simply cannot look like a victoria secret model, no matter what they do, or how low their body fat/weight is or how they sculpt their musculature.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

Qing-Qong — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:27:44 GMT

This discussion is slightly ridiculous. I could tell from the first sentence onwards that it was written by a woman, who feels extremely threatened by what has been found out more than a decade ago.

It is often said that men do not know what women want. Which might be true. But, judging from this article, the same is true for women, most of them do not know what men want. And what is worse, both sexes, men and women, often believe that traits, that they find attractive in the other sex, makes them attractive sexually as well. I cannot think of many things more unattractive in a woman, than a stubborn will to be in charge all the time and the pursuit of her career at any cost, thinking that an obsessive competitive mindset in this area will make men want to go for her. On the other hand, as I had to find out the hard way, being a really NICE guy, who really likes to listen and help women a lot, does NOT work in this department. But interestingly, as I believe, it works the other way round.

I have read the article "The Biology of Beauty" 1996, I still can remember how true it rang to me as a man. It made so much sense to me, and I know, that I do find women attractive that have a narrower waist than hip (I would not be able to put a number to it though, but 0.7 feels extremely right to me). So, instead of getting despaired, get over it, girls. Being successful in this department can be hard work. You girls show us every day.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

BrakeHeart — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:53:22 GMT

The most distinctive physical differences between men and women can be seen in two basic areas, breasts and hips. Women should feel that they are worthwhile despite their body shape but not because of propaganda such as this "scientific study." I find the difference between waist and hip girth to be quite alluring. Last thing society needs is a bunch of equalized androgenous drones, let's be different and enjoy the vareity! 1easylay , I'd prefer Alba over Barr on personality alone by the way.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

DarkLayers — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:42:19 GMT

You know Qing-Qong, it's funny that you find the '96 story to be so true, because one of the factoids featured in it, was actually either inaccurate or misleading.

Jeremy Freese and Sheri Meland and other researchers found that Singh's claims about Playboy and Miss America beauty icons weren't true. Only 15% of Miss America's had WHRs in the 68-72 range and 31% of Playboy models did.

Also, a meta-analysis found that measurable symmetry accounts for less than 3% of the variation in men's facial attractiveness and less than 1% of the variation in women's facial attractiveness.

www.jeremyfreese.com/docs/FreeseMeland%20-%20SevenTenthsIncorrect.pdf

Brake Heart mentions that it's the waist-hip girth is alluring to him. For what it's worth, guys do find lower ones sexier, but BMI or weight scaled for weight is arguably more important. Martin Tovee found that WHR accounts for less than 10% of physical attractiveness ratings of women's bodies in Britain, Malaysia and Finland.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

fm8200 — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:49:22 GMT

Vigilance:

I'm not sure if you were responding to my post, or 1easylay's, but I agree with the general sentiment of your post. Care for one-another is very important. That is what I see as the underlying feeling of your post. I cannot knock your feelings on this issue.

But, there are some things which irk me about the words people sometimes use (I'm not saying you or anyone meant anything I'm about to comment on). For example, we are facing rampant, probably easily preventable disease, most likely aggravated by our eating habits. I find it disappointing that the phrase "real food" has become synonymous with poor long-term dietary choices in the west. Someone eating a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, proteins, nuts, etc, etc might often be shunned as an outsider, even as their habits undeniably consist of more nutrient-dense "real food" than the daily choices of the average american.

Further, we have all kinds of evidence that long term regulation of caloric intake not only keeps the BMI low, but may prevent or alleviate all sorts of age-related disease. Low BMI might truly be a marker of health (not the cause of good health, but an indicator). And, as DarkerLayers has pointed out with that reference, a BMI of 18-20 is generally seen as the most attractive. In American pop culture, that BMI range is very, very often labeled an "anorexic ideal". Yet, there couldn't be anything more healthy about it (if it is the result of a healthy lifestyle). As a relatively thin-looking person I'm bombarded with comments all the time about how I should eat more, etc etc (though I eat between 3000 and 4000 calories a day... yes I'm a nutrition nerd and monitor that from time to time, mainly to try to build muscle). However, I'm tall with a BMI around 23/24 at the moment, and tall people just look lanky unless they are significantly overweight. So, I can easily shrug off comments like these. But imagine someone who has a BMI of 18-20, who is probably the image of health, being shot down by these constant misinformed comments about "real food", "anorexic ideal", etc. That is where our culture crosses the line from "healthy concern for the inner person" and becomes potentially dangerous to health-consciousness.

Make no mistake about anything I've said: Visual preference and physical health are two separate things. I'm not saying that a woman should keep her BMI low, just to fit an "ideal"-- anymore than a man should have a good job or drive a decent car to impress a woman. Nor am I saying that sexual appeal should be given as much weight as it is given in our culture. I'm saying that in probably the majority of cases, health and this "ideal" go hand in hand, and just maybe this is a positive outcome of evolution (or our "design" if you want to look at it that way). We all have standards, and in most cases, this standard probably isn't as big of a deal as it is made out to be in the west. I'm concede that probably not all males prefer this standard. Nor am I saying that people should live their lives in order to reach someone else's standards--- what an empty life that would be. Let's cultivate a culture where people are themselves, respected, cared for and rewarded for moral and ethical decisions.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

DarkLayers — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:25:13 GMT

fm8200: With regards to BMI, beauty, and health, I think it depends on where you look. The ideal BMI range of 18-21 is actually good for health and fertility, according to some reviews of the public health literature.

And this paper has a good discussion about it:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1689653

But, there are also some weak spots in a biology of beauty interpretation where people seek out healthy and fertile traits. In a cross-cultural by Tovee and Swami, they find the ideal BMI is around 18. And studies indicate 20-21 is optimal for health. Another thing is this duo did attractiveness studies in Malaysia and did the Malays, Chinese, and Indians have different fat distributions so they should have different ideal BMIs for beauty, but they have the same. So, sometimes beauty and health are linked and others they aren't.

As for beauty, there are different theories with why it gets us. Ultimately, though, attractive people do enjoy certain benefits in life (popularity, less social anxiety, more sexual experience, pay premiums, advantages in court trials). So, I mean I guess we do value it.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

mjf377 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:36:16 GMT

I would suggest that the author suggesting that the current average waist to hip ratio of 0.8 is not reflective of a long evolutionary history since the prevalence of processed sugar, fast food and other dietary factors contributing to a higher waist to hip ratio have hardly been present long enough to allow evolution to attempt to counter them, only long enough to cause an obeisiy epidemic in the developed world. For a more humorous counterpoint to this article, try:

www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sex_news_sports_funny_grok/a_sinful_taste_for_tiny_waists

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

fm8200 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:11:00 GMT

DarkLayers:

I would suggest that there probably isn't an optimal BMI. BMI is just a rough estimation that is useful for comparing individuals in a population of similar lifestyles and genetics. Given optimal nutrition and physical activity, the "ideal" BMI could be less than 20. Or not. But I think the studies on calorie restriction are already putting out data to support that idea.

Though, I can tell you this much: Given my body type, Even if I had a BMI of 20/21 there is no way I would fit in american pop culture, I'd look like the images they always show on TV of anorexic patients- or the models which are so-often criticized for portraying "unrealistic" ideals. Yet, it probably would be pretty healthy for me. So, cultural pressures are actually probably deleterious to my health because of this.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

oolert — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:59:54 GMT

Honestly how is the ability to combat chronic diseases and being fertile bad? The way this article is written you would think that it was linked to cardiovascular disease and babies with autism.

Also the argument of the author about women in countries where they are more economically dependent have hourglass figure is ridiculous. Have you seen the average Japanese woman? they are not renowned for their tiny waists and large hips. Also she has the notion of Cortisol utterly backwards. Cortisol, produced in excess by chronic stress, can lead to fat being preferentially deposited around the waist. So perhaps the reason why women are thicker waisted in our modern society is not only because of our terrible diet but because we are chronically stressed out? Also, maybe thinner waisted women don't need to store their fat in their abdomen because their bodies can handle stress better? Which also could possibly linked to higher fertility rates in addition to more estrogen in their bodies?

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

RKolk — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:34:09 GMT

I have a .7 waist to hip ratio and would hardly say I am shaped like Barbie. Nor am I weak, apathetic, or submissive. This article is absolute nonsense. It is a fact that hourglass-shaped women have estrogen levels that are three times as high as average. It is also a fact that hourglass-shaped women are more fertile than average. And while what people find attractive is a subjective matter, I must note that my hourglass shape has always been highly appreciated by men. Few men who claim to prefer women with chubby waistlines and narrow hips, but the author wistfully explains this away by blaming advertising and media images for men's preferences.

The author illogically pretends that because non-hourglass women also tend to be fertile, there must be no reproductive advantage to having an hourglass shape. To her if hourglass women are fertile, that most mean non-hourglass women are non-fertile. That's claptrap. The evidence says that hourglass-shaped women are more fertile than average, not that hourglass-shaped women are the only fertile women. The author backs up her claims with non-evidence such as an unsupported claim that there are fertility clinics full of hourglass women and another unsupported claim that women with masculine shapes conceive easily. I guess it was pure magic that my hourglass-shaped self conceived a few minutes after throwing out the birth control.

The author claims that few women have hourglass proportions and that they therefore must not be desirable. This is more nonsense. Eight percent of women have an hourglass shape. I wouldn't say a trait shared by nearly one out of ten women is incredibly rare. It's also quite likely that more women would have an hourglass figure if rates of smoking, drinking, and soda consumption weren't so high.

This author is such a zealot that she denies the idea that there is any "biology of beauty". Really? Basically she is claiming that beauty does not exist, that no one woman is more attractive than any other, that Sophia Loren in her prime was more physically desirable than the hypothetically totally average woman. It's one thing to be frustrated by the beauty demands made on women; it's quite another to pretend that beauty doesn't exist.

This article seems to be published only to slam women with hourglass shapes. It's sloppily written, and the hateful motivations are pathetic and transparent. My body shape should not be used to make a political point.

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

DarkLayers — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:23:25 GMT

RKolk, it's interesting that you bring up Sophia Loren. The biology of beauty, as discussed with WHR, argues that human beings are hardwired to find specific traits attractive because they enhanced reproductive success in our ancestral environments. Hormones influence fat deposition, and a curvaceous figure is related to higher levels of estrogen compared to testosterone. But, Sophia Loren would actually seem to be a testament to limitations of this reasoning, rather than an exemplar of this principle. She had two miscarriages (and only two kids).

re: Hourglass Figures: We Take It All Back

DarkLayers — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:33:09 GMT

oolert...you mention Japan where women are renowned for their tiny waists and large hips. This is fully expected with the pattern discussed. Japan is ranked relatively low on gender empowerment measures. see for example:

91 on Global Gender Gap, World Economic Forum 2007

and 98 2008

Also, if you want to read the papers, check out Martin Tovee (Newcastle University)'s website. His cross-cultural studies in Japan and Greece show this pattern:

Swami, V., Caprario, C., Tovée, M. J., & Furnham, A. (2006). Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Japan: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 20, 69-81.

Swami, V., Antonakopoulos, N., Tovée, M. J., & Furnham, A. (2006). A critical test of the waist-to-hip ratio hypothesis of female physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece. Sex Roles, 54, 201-211.