Large Breasts + Narrow Waist = Baby

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-05 11:37am

New Scientist

The classic hour glass shape of physically fit women in the West seems to be the most able to reproduce successfully according to a new study.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 06:03pm

I think i've heard of this stat before

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-05-05 06:07pm

Not sure, but the hourglass figure has to be the most attractive female form for a reason, from an evolution standpoint

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-05 06:09pm

The study used only Polish women for some reason. I wonder how this correlation would work across a larger statistical sample, crossing racial lines.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-05 06:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:The study used only Polish women for some reason. I wonder how this correlation would work across a larger statistical sample, crossing racial lines.

My first thought is that different cultures will have different values on what a woman should look like. In some places, a very round woman is a very attractive one because it denotes wealth due to being able to eat well. Or skinny women are seen as poor and sick.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-05 07:54pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:My first thought is that different cultures will have different values on what a woman should look like. In some places, a very round woman is a very attractive one because it denotes wealth due to being able to eat well. Or skinny women are seen as poor and sick.

While culture clearly influences standards of beauty, there ARE universal standards of beauty that cross racial and cultural lines, as well.

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2004-05-05 07:58pm

Think it was Desmond Morris, has a series called The Human Animal, where they do a worldwide test showing silhouttes of different figures. Basically the 66%-70% waist to hip ratio is considered desirable and the best for reproducing throughout the world.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 07:58pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The study used only Polish women for some reason. I wonder how this correlation would work across a larger statistical sample, crossing racial lines.
My first thought is that different cultures will have different values on what a woman should look like. In some places, a very round woman is a very attractive one because it denotes wealth due to being able to eat well. Or skinny women are seen as poor and sick.

I read that no matter skinny or fat, attractive women usually have a narrower waist relative to their behind. It was in a Readers Digest article from 1997, I recall it instantly because it's got a picture of Amber Valetta. Hahahah.

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2004-05-05 08:06pm

They also mention waist-hip ratio affects other hormones that has noting to do with breasts, so not sure what they mean by Barbie looks, unless they let didn't consider implants vs natural breasts.

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2004-05-05 08:08pm

They also mention waist-hip ratio affects other hormones that has noting to do with breasts, so not sure what they mean by Barbie looks, unless they didn't consider implants vs natural breasts.

Sorry quick edit, not sure if you can edit in SLM.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-05-06 09:17am

What can i say, except WELL, DUH!!

Zac got it right: evolutionary biologists have known this for years. It was the first example of sexual selection in humans I learned.

*sigh*

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-06 10:35am

Zac Naloen wrote:Not sure, but the hourglass figure has to be the most attractive female form for a reason, from an evolution standpoint

Good point.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2004-05-06 11:16am

It's lean, its fit, big breasts are good for rearing children, wide hips are good for giving birth. I'm sure women have some standard for sexy men as well. They prefer lean/muscular men who would defend them from mammoths and giant land sloths while we want women who can raise children who can also defend us from mammoths and giant land sloths when we become old, or children who when grown up can raise children who can also defend us from mammoths and giant land sloths.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-07 12:22pm

InnerBrat wrote:What can i say, except WELL, DUH!!

Zac got it right: evolutionary biologists have known this for years. It was the first example of sexual selection in humans I learned.

*sigh*

Well, there is that whole "experiment" part of science.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-05-08 09:14am

InnerBrat wrote:What can i say, except WELL, DUH!!

Zac got it right: evolutionary biologists have known this for years. It was the first example of sexual selection in humans I learned.

*sigh*

Why the Sigh IB?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-05-08 12:25pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
InnerBrat wrote:What can i say, except WELL, DUH!!

Zac got it right: evolutionary biologists have known this for years. It was the first example of sexual selection in humans I learned.

*sigh*
Well, there is that whole "experiment" part of science.

Suppose. But it's really not a new idea.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-05-08 04:26pm

I propose and experiment to find out

I need 200 woman that fit the high fertilizy profile
I need 200 woman that are between slim and this 'high profile shape'
I need 200 woman that are below the ratio, ie what we would consider slendor

I propose I sleep with them all 5 times during there highest fertility period to see how many of a given category concieve

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-08 04:37pm

Solauren wrote:
InnerBrat wrote:What can i say, except WELL, DUH!!

Zac got it right: evolutionary biologists have known this for years. It was the first example of sexual selection in humans I learned.

*sigh*
Why the Sigh IB?

Her sexy good looks have been the bane of her life as guys and gals flock to mate with her whereever she may be. That's why she already knew this.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-05-08 06:40pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:It's lean, its fit, big breasts are good for rearing children, wide hips are good for giving birth. I'm sure women have some standard for sexy men as well. They prefer lean/muscular men who would defend them from mammoths and giant land sloths while we want women who can raise children who can also defend us from mammoths and giant land sloths when we become old, or children who when grown up can raise children who can also defend us from mammoths and giant land sloths.

IIRC correctly some studies have said that there are actually two archetypes for female perferences in men. The first is the "big muscular macho mammoth killer" and the other is the "sensative family man." It seems, according to these studies women actually DO want those sweet sensative guys (to help take care of the kids and such), but they also want to sleep and reproduce with those big dumb muscleheads so their kids get those big attractive musclehead genes.

But that's in general. Me? I fall for sweet nerdy guys. (Not to say there aren't any hot muscular sweet nerdy guys.

)

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-05-08 06:56pm

Mayabird wrote:IIRC correctly some studies have said that there are actually two archetypes for female perferences in men. The first is the "big muscular macho mammoth killer" and the other is the "sensative family man." It seems, according to these studies women actually DO want those sweet sensative guys (to help take care of the kids and such), but they also want to sleep and reproduce with those big dumb muscleheads so their kids get those big attractive musclehead genes.

Incidentally, just to clarify, these two archetypes are both wanted by every (ish) women, depending on the time of the month.