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.
but I thought you said curviness had to do with fertility... Hippyness does not constitute fetrtility nor does it constitute curviness. That's what your argument was it was based on the curviness of hips because of fertility... But it seems hips on the slimmer side are more desireable. Your initial point has been disabled obviously. You're just going opinion now.
Not exactly. I said the reason why I think curves are defined by a low WHR, regardless of breast size, is because of its correlation with fertility. No such correlation exists with a breast-waist-ratio.
And since when are we talking about what is more desirable? Slim hips are undeniably less curvy than wide hips. That's...well that's just basic geometry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitgirl11
big hips aren't a sign of fertility bottom line
I don't know what to tell you other than You're wrong.
it's not a low whr. You yourself said I am not hippy and I have an ideal hip size. The whr that you're best for fertility when you're within medium range not large range. Large is stuff below .67. Therefore fertility isn't about big hips it's a medium to small size but not flat and not large.
also hip size ideally changes from ulture to culture just like breast sizes.
thanks btw for showing the link that proves ideally fertilitywise what's desireable are those with .7-.79 whrs. Also it says men focus on the waist more than the hips. You do understand you can have a very small waist and a higher whr. Also that link says it changes culture to culture.
I have two other links to share. Supporting what I've been saying
it's not a low whr. You yourself said I am not hippy and I have an ideal hip size. The whr that you're best for fertility when you're within medium range not large range. Large is stuff below .67. Therefore fertility isn't about big hips it's a medium to small size but not flat and not large.
also hip size ideally changes from ulture to culture just like breast sizes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitgirl11
thanks btw for showing the link that proves ideally fertilitywise what's desireable are those with .7-.79 whrs. Also it says men focus on the waist more than the hips. You do understand you can have a very small waist and a higher whr. Also that link says it changes culture to culture.
I have two other links to share. Supporting what I've been saying
Oh, you fall into the range for the health benefits (supposedly), but when you use ambiguous terms like large, medium, and ideal without qualifying them, they are essentially meaningless. The reason I brought up the relation to fertility in the first place was to explain why I view a pear shape as curvy, while the lollipop/inverted triangle is not curvy, but busty. And it seems you've come to agree, finding study after study that touts the importance of WHR and trying to argue that even you fall into that important range.
But wait, there's more! One study took pictures of six different beautiful women, ranging from WHR of 0.7 to 0.79, and manipulated the photos to compare the original with a photo with a smaller waist and a photo with a larger waist. Across the board, the smaller WHR was preferred.
And remember how you kept saying big hips=transvestite/manly? Yeah, not in the least. This study was to determine how WHR affected perceived gender of an animated figure. They set six shadowed figures to animation with WHR varying from 0.5 to 0.9. The 0.5 and 0.6 figures were overwhelmingly viewed as female, the 0.8 and 0.9 as male, and the 0.7 was about 50/50.
You keep reaching unfounded conclusions like "small hips are ideal" and "WHR below 0.67 is unhealthy", but I haven't seen a scrap of evidence to back up those claims.
no I didn't say that big hips made anyone manly or transvetite. You're confusing me with jersey and her osession with oobs because she can't have any without gaining weight
an easier way to rule out a tranny is by the hands bone structure and size. A delicate small with wide shoulders and no hips in other words an inverted triangle shape is obviously less likely to be a tranny than a big manly chick with large hips. Women with ais have hips. Some are very wide. They're almost trannies themselves. But they're certainly not delicate. I think delicateness shows more femininety than hip structure. At leqst that's what I recognzie. In body type I'm barely a woman. Much more like a girl. But I happen to have wide shoulders and narrow hips. I'm considered far more feminine than most girls. Plus chest size overrules it like most inverted triangles are... But tranniws have something mannish about them. As for boy trannies(trannies who transitioned as boys) the petit rule may not exist. Even then like kim for example still looks huge compared to women like myself. But I'm like the tiny stereotypical asian chick so it seems hard for females to be that way let alone trannies. I tend to think for this reason most women have a chance of being trans or some type of genetic male.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitgirl11
no I didn't say that big hips made anyone manly or transvetite. You're confusing me with jersey and her osession with oobs because she can't have any without gaining weight
ORLY? Most transexuals have wide shoulder and no hips and some of them are quite delicate. The inverted triangle is, afterall, the most typical male body type.
And I'd still like a response to this post. Which one of these young women do you think more people would describe as "curvy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedError
Let's try it this way, who appears to have a curvier figure?
you haven't seen any evidence because you won't read what I specifically put up in the links. Last link specifically says those in the 70's were most attractive. It also says on any site the perfect numbber is .7. Not .5 or .6.
people can have small waists and small hips not a hard concept. And large is certainly not in the .7 range if I'm in it. Now is it? Obviously not...
you do understand you can have an ideal whr for fertility and still have small hops and be considered a lollipop or inverted triangle.
I already gave proof on a study that those with small ideala hip sizes and large breasts were the most fertile so that kills your theory sorry hate to nreak it to you....
and hips are a characteristic many klinefelter males have. So what.
when I said manly I meant someone with bigger bones. And that was at jersey who is a very big woman. I was just saying many more men had her bone mass. I also meant by no hips as small hips. Now I know the difference. I just assume.7 was large until I calculated it. A user agreed she thinks she's small having a .7 ratio herself on another thread. Now I know better all thanks to you you made it clear that ideally for fertility and attraction its not large but medium to small and the focus is on the stomach and fat distribution of the hips which is not too little and mot too small.
you haven't seen any evidence because you won't read what I specifically put up in the links. Last link specifically says those in the 70's were most attractive. It also says on any site the perfect numbber is .7. Not .5 or .6.
people can have small waists and small hips not a hard concept. And large is certainly not in the .7 range if I'm in it. Now is it? Obviously not...
you do understand you can have an ideal whr for fertility and still have small hops and be considered a lollipop or inverted triangle.
I already gave proof on a study that those with small ideala hip sizes and large breasts were the most fertile so that kills your theory sorry hate to nreak it to you....
You do realize there's an ENORMOUS difference between .7 and .77 WHRs, right? There is a HUGE difference between 31 in hips and 36 in hips. Studies tend to find WHR around .7 are rated as most attractive, but the majority of the most beautiful women in history have had WHR of .7 or lower. De facto, a low WHR is a coveted defining feature in femininity.
That doesn't mean you can't be attractive and beautiful and feminine just because you have no hips, it just means you can't be curvy.
who said I was .77. And 36 is not ideal. 34 inches is. Which is not as much of a difference between 31 to 36. Either way my point is what's seen as attractive more of the time is in the 70's not the 60's. I already gave you links on this.
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.
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.
