Conventional wisdom
Clearly, certain types of women are more attractive to men than other types. These days, “thin is in” so, women theorize, if they were lucky enough genetically or nutrionally motivated, they could all achieve the Holy Grail of sexual attractiveness. So much so that we are witnessing a disturbing trend of eating disorders in the female population. Obviously, being lean is not the only thing but it would seem to be the number one thing on women’s mind.
If the waist measurement divided by the hip measure comes to 0,7 you are exactly what males want. |
What if
What if being skinny was not the most important thing?! What if there was one way to rate women on their sexual attractiveness on a scientific manner?! Well, there might just be such a thing.
Findings by researchers on female attractiveness claim that the male eye when appraising women is mainly concerned with the ratio between the measure of the waist of the woman (smallest measure possible) and the measure of the hips (widest measure possible). If the waist measurement divided by the hip measure comes to 0,7 you are exactly what males want. The farther you are from that ratio the farther you are from man’s ideal.
What becomes interesting is that researchers compared women from all eras (even going back to stars of the fifties) and the ratio has not moved in the least. Then, they compared sex-symbols from every culture and the same ratio applied every single time. There was no exception to this. Amusing anecdotal evidence, Marylin Monroe, the voluptuous American movie star of the sixties, and Twiggy the extra-lean model of the seventies share the same 0,7 ratio while having otherwise a different look. It would seem that the male eye sees the female body as a whole in a geometric pattern.
[ad code=2]
Why is this concept so hard to believe for women? Very simple. Women, when appraising women, use roughly the same parameters as they use for men. So we know that men are attracted by “0.7” women but, and here is the kicker, women are not attracted to 0.7 men. In fact, some researchers speculate that women tastes run between 0.8 and 0.9 (but it is not as clear cut as with men so do not go to the tape yet guys!). In short, women, when looking for beauty, are not looking for curves and softness (what a surprise), they are looking for women that are tall and lean which is exactly what they are looking for in a man. Indeed many women reading this article will go to the tape and get a favorable reading only to state that “it doesn’t work” because they do not see themselves as beautiful (which way of thinking effectively makes them ugly to men in general but that is for another article). Women, and it is not surprising, look at women through women’s eyes and it is simply a misleading way of looking at it. This statement is backed by a lot of serious research.
If it is of any consolation to women, men make the same mistake. If you look at a bodybuilder you soon realize that it shares many geometrical aspects with the female anatomy. The hip to waist ratio is very close to 0.7 for one thing. The muscles are round and curvy. Man’s love for women’s breasts is also well represented by a bodybuilder’s pectorals which could give some feminine breasts a run for their money. Men assume that a bodybuilder’s physique would render them immensely attractive to women when clinical research clearly shows that women are more attracted to lean and moderately muscled men. As for men, musclebound men who are certain to be sexually attractive achieve that status because of their self-confidence. They are so to speak, a sexual fraud. To be sure of that just remember who paid the more attention to Sylvestor Stallone movies. The heterosexual guys happily watched Stallone’s pectorals for two hours while the girls yawned their way out of the theaters. The recent success of professionnal wrestling is the exact same thing. Men simply use their own criterias to judge men (and themselves). Clearly they should not.
What to make of it
It would seem that that body structure (the way you are built) has more to do with sexual attractiveness than body composition (how fat you actually are). These findings would suggest to women wanting to lose weight to make sure that the drop in weight drives them toward the 0,7 ratio rather than away from it.
… women, when looking for beauty, are not looking for curves and softness (what a surprise), they are looking for women that are tall and lean which is exactly what they are looking for in a man. |
In parting, we acknowledge that reducing women to a ratio is a shocking, even revolting, concept. The fact is that the 0,7 ratio concept might indeed make us look at man’s sexual decisions in a less noble way. To those who point out that man is after all nothing less than a more intelligent animal but an animal none the less, we say that it is not the proper time nor the proper place to discuss this…