Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
Ive bee posting about how,though my measurements for my height seem average, to good,but not over-average.
I' m freaking out(and getting on my own last damn nerve) since I read this book,"Survival of the Prettiest."
It's about how our looks become concidered "attractive" by society thru biology.I knew I should not have picked the damn thing up...
The book said something about how men are mostly attracted to women with small waists,because its generally after menopause that fat collects around the midsection.
That's why men like big hips,too,cuz women with fattier hips have more omega-3 acids to provide the developing fetus.
Something like that.
But the calculations the writers gave for an aesthetically attractive form went along the lines of a waist ten-to-twelve inched smaller than your bust and hips.
I know,logically,that women of all sizes can make bank,and that for every man who doesn
t want me another will.
But I still think I would be more confident with a smaller waist.Idk...
Do you guys think I just need to stfu and get over myself,or is this a valid concern?
Thanks for putting up with my insmniactic self.Hugs for all
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
it's really not a big deal. I have a really tiny waist, however my thighs aren't very toned and my boobs are small.
you can always choose something to fret about with your body, and honestly I would rather have tiny boobs and a big butt than big boobs and no ass (which I see often at work.)
I've also seen girls incredibly tiny that don't have a waist, and a lot of girls on here have concluded that sometimes the emaciated look really does turn guys on.
and then girls who are very womanly also tend to get guys.
I've come to the conclusion that pretty much every shape (and even in some cases just plain fat) can and will make money.
trust me-- I'm not a huge fan of my thighs because they're not toned and yet I'm too lazy to put work into them...and yet, I make money-- it's likely not just the waist.
so stop worrying.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
I just calculated your waist to hip ratio and it came out as 0.75
from good old wikipedia:
"Scientists have discovered that the waist-hip ratio (WHR) is a significant factor in judging female attractiveness. Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are usually rated as more attractive by men from European cultures[10]. Such diverse beauty icons as Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Gong Li, and even the Venus de Milo all have ratios around 0.7, even though they have different weights"
Seriously though i have learned that most gentlemen are just happy to see a woman. I mean there are men having sex with bikes for gods sake!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/7095134.stm
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
Quote:
Originally Posted by
thisunrest
Do you guys think I just need to stfu and get over myself
yes. Hey, you said it, not me. ;) I mean seriously, if that's you in the avi, you're just agonizing over nothing.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
Not 10-12 inches, that's bad maths as 10-12 can be a big difference to unnoticeable depending on the women. HOWEVER studies show the most attractive look is a 2:3 ratio. Your waist to be most attractive according to maths should be 2/3rds your bust and hips... but really.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
yeah id say you are way over analizing it.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
There's only so much you can do about your hip:waist ratio. Might as well worry about something you can actually control. It took me a long time to realize that everything was still okay even if not every man on the planet was irresistibly stricken with the urge to have sex with me... it was super liberating and awesome when I finally got my head around that one.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
Quote:
Originally Posted by
i.breathe.in
yeah id say you are way over analizing it.
New siggy quote because of hilarious spelling error. I love you.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
I think I read parts of Survival of the Prettiest. There's all kinds of rules of beauty in there and nobody meets all of them so don't worry about it. I've heard men complain that a woman is too straight up and down and also men complain that a woman's hips and butt are too wide. So go figure. I don't think you should worry.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
Besides, if you want to make your waist look smaller, you can do two things:
1. Stomach vacuums. Google for more info, but essentially these involve working your ab muscles by exhaling all your air while simultaneously sucking your abs in as much as possble, like you're trying to touch your spine with your bellybutton, and holding for a count of 5-10.
2. Any form of weight training involving pulling weight down like you would with a chin-up (in fact, chin-ups are the best you can do for this). Work your traps and you'll get that V shape that makes your waist look tiny.
As for having a waist 10" smaller, well, it's not that simple. When I'm in my best shape, I DO have a waist 10" smaller than my chest (34-24-33) and it still doesn't look that small because I'm just not a very curvy person. I'm more straight up and down. So the measurement clearly isn't all there is to the equation.
"Survival of the Prettiest" is an interesting book, and I admit I've taken away some learnings from it in order to maximize my own attraction cues. Instead of coloring my hair, I just make sure it's as healthy as possible. I don't wear asymmetrical clothing, I try to keep my skin in good shape.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
haha amazing i just noticed. well i guess she was being anal in the worry. i suck at spelling and never care haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ViolaStrings
New siggy quote because of hilarious spelling error. I love you.
Re: Okay,ladies,give it to me straight but sweet
My measurement are 36-26-36 but due to bone structure and the way my body carries my weight I really don't look like I have 10in difference in my waistline like my ex who yes was 2in shorter and 2in slimmer in the waist 36-24-36 5'3" just like the Sir mix alot song.
It's just her shoulders and hips are wider (so she had an awesome hourglass figure)while I have a birdcage ribcage and my ass is just bigger so I look much more built up and down and you wouldn't notice that unless it was at a side view.
Anyhow while I do believe measurements due play a part in what is considered beauty standards it's not everything nor the only thing.
I believe Britney at the peek of her career had killer ratio measurements compared to Madonna , but even though Madonna's older I believe she by far has had the better body in the me against the music video as Madonna has that toned well worked out yoga thing going for her that trumps good measurements for me