U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
26,864 posts, read 28,137,614 times
Reputation: 25975

Advertisements

Reading this thread has me thinking of the song "Going in Circles" by the Friends of Distinction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:21 PM
 
3,517 posts, read 5,440,470 times
Reputation: 5566
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitgirl11 View Post
.7 ratio isn't even for a woman. I have the same whr and as you see I'm quite small. Therefore big hips aren't always ideal. And also here yes we all do have changes as swelling in the breasts


Breast - Premenstrual Tenderness and Swelling - Symptoms, Causes, Tests - NY Times Health Information

a sign of feminineness is breasts so by that logic it stands the same. It is far more a feminine trait as I said before men with hips are less acceptable than men with boobs. You hear about intersex situations and things don't become a problem until they get the boobs more than the hips. Wait I'll get the link I was reading early just wait a sec.

What makes us attractive? What is beauty?: Viewzone
Honey, I don't care about man boobs, man hips, transvestites, or intersex disorders. They are irrelevant to the conversation. We are talking about biology, and biologically speaking a low WHR has a positive correlation with fertility in women while no such relationship has been observed regarding breast-waist-ratio.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:29 PM
 
Location: las vegas nevada
517 posts, read 714,207 times
Reputation: 146
that's not a low whr. I already explained I'm in the ideal range and have very small hips. Large hips aren't even ideal. It's the small ones that are. Anything between .8 and .67 is ideal not lower

and it is relevant you spoke of it being a feminine trait and apart of fertility which I prove to you it was by those links. Face it large hips aren't ideal proportional ones are

Last edited by kitgirl11; 08-23-2012 at 04:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:50 PM
 
3,517 posts, read 5,440,470 times
Reputation: 5566
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitgirl11 View Post
that's not a low whr. I already explain I'm in the ideal range and have very small hips. Large hips aren't even ideal.

and it is relevant you spoke of it being a feminine trait and apart of fertility which I prove to you it was by those links. Face it large hips aren't ideal proportional ones are
0.7 is the average generally used as ideal, though most of the famous women traditionally considered curvy have lower WHR (i.e. Monroe 0.62, Kim Kardashian 0.61, Bettie Page 0.68, Sophia Loren 0.63). One thing all these women have in common is wide hips in relation to their waists so that straight on they appear quite curvy, the "coke bottle" figure. Save for Kim K, these women also had very flat behinds. A woman with narrow hips and a large butt will appear not at all curvy straight on but has a more bubbly profile. When examining famous curvy women throughout Hollywood history, it seems that wide hips are coveted regardless of a large or small behind.

You previously posted your WHR is 0.8, which isn't bad or unattractive, it just isn't in the "ideal" range for curviness. It isn't about "large" hips, it's about hips that are proportionately wider than the waist.

The problem with claiming that "large" breasts are an indicator of ovlutation is that, well, it's just not true. Some women may experience slightly larger breasts during parts of their cycle, but if one of those women goes from a 32AA to a 32A (which is a much larger gain than ovulation would normally cause), she still doesn't have large breasts. So if a man is checking out a pretty girl with large breasts who is ovulating, her chest gives him no indication as to her fertility as he has no point of reference for her breast size when she is not ovulating.

And again, the change in breast size throughout your cycle is rather small. Even a man who you see intimately on a daily basis would probably not notice the change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:52 PM
 
Location: las vegas nevada
517 posts, read 714,207 times
Reputation: 146
no I'm not .8. I'm less than .8
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:57 PM
 
3,517 posts, read 5,440,470 times
Reputation: 5566
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitgirl11 View Post
no I'm not .8. I'm less than .8
Out of curiosity, what are your measurements? You measure around the fullest part of your bust, the narrowest part of your abdomen (or a couple inches below the bellybutton), and the fullest part of your hips.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 04:58 PM
 
Location: las vegas nevada
517 posts, read 714,207 times
Reputation: 146
a waist that's 24 inches can have hips as small as 30 inches and still be between ideal range. Ideal range is .8 to .67. So those individuals you speak of are neither ideal and by your logic not curvy because they are outside of what's ideal. Therefore you've abandoned your own argument of ideal hip size. As said before it's not large hips that are ideal it's the small ones. I am closer or as close to the ideal hip size as all of them besides bette. The difference is they aren't in the prime healthiest range of range which isn't just .7 but between .67 to.8. Therefore your argument means nothing

Last edited by kitgirl11; 08-23-2012 at 05:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 05:04 PM
 
Location: las vegas nevada
517 posts, read 714,207 times
Reputation: 146
mistake you've made actually there is a different because when I ovulate I look large and regularly I'm actually medium. In small chested people it may look less of a difference. But for larger chested women like myself it's a significant difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: las vegas nevada
517 posts, read 714,207 times
Reputation: 146
I already said .69 and below .8 which is in ideal range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 05:21 PM
 
3,517 posts, read 5,440,470 times
Reputation: 5566
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitgirl11 View Post
a waist that's 24 inches can hips as small as 30 inches and still be between ideal range. Ideal range is .8 to .67. So those individuals you speak of are neither ideal and by your logic not curvy because they are outside of what's ideal. Therefore you've abandoned your own argument of ideal hip size. As said before it's not large hips that are ideal it's the small ones. I am closer or as close to the ideal hip size as all of them besides bette. The difference is they aren't in the prime healthiest range of range which isn't just .7 but between .67 to.8. Therefore your argument means nothing
That's a whole lot of "therefores" you just threw out there.

I never said that only women who have an exact WHR of 0.7 are curvy, I merely explained why, biologically, women with low WHR are more attractive to men.

Now, how do you quantify a low WHR? That's a bit subjective. One study found that 0.8 was the point at which pregnancy rates start to dip so lets agree that anything greater than or equal to 0.8 is certainly not low.

If 0.7 is the average ideal, let's determine the range for what still falls into that ideal look/health benefit. How about two standard deviations? That would be a range of 0.56-0.84. Hmm, that overshoots our high range by a bit and the low range seems a bit extreme. While exaggerated features are often coveted, there is a point at which they become comical or alien and, thus, unattractive to the masses. An example of a 0.54 WHR would be Ms. Bardot's cinched waist in this picture:


Probably a bit extreme for the average male, hm? So lets narrow the range to only one standard deviation, 0.63-0.77. That sounds about right to me, after looking up the measurements of several famously curvy women, though of course there is always some wiggle room in either direction.

And again, looking over some of the most famously curvy women, it seems what counts is hips that are relatively wider than the waist. Those hips may be small or large, 30 inches or 46 inches, but they would likely still be perceived as curvy if the accompanying waist was around 70% the size of the hips. Curviness isn't a size, by any means, it is a ratio.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top