Waist to hip ratio, or WHR, compares the size of your waist to your hips. Because it is so easy to measure it has been used in studies of health, beauty and even intelligence.
To get the number divide the size of your waist by the size of your hips. For example, Jennifer Lopez is 86-58-87 cm, so her WHR is 58/87 or 0.67.
For women, a low WHR, like 0.65, gives them more of an hourglass figure.
Here are some beautiful women listed in order of WHR, from high to low:
0.78 | ![]() Jean Underwood. |
0.77 | ![]() |
0.76 | |
0.75 | |
0.74 | ![]() Aishwarya Rai. |
0.73 | ![]() Angelina Jolie. |
0.72 | ![]() ![]() Twiggy, Eva Pigford. |
0.71 | ![]() ![]() ![]() Jessica White, Gwyneth Paltrow, Paris Hilton, Heidi Klum. |
0.70 | ![]() ![]() ![]() Annette Bening, Jessica Alba, Chanel Iman. |
0.69 | ![]() Greta Garbo, Anna Nicole Smith, Kate Moss. |
0.68 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Lana Turner, Naomi Campbell, YaYa Da Costa, Vida Guerra. |
0.67 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Rita Hayworth, Jennifer Lopez, Tyra Banks, Hoopz, Gisele Bundchen. |
0.66 | |
0.65 | ![]() ![]() ![]() Bo Derek, Adriana Lima, Kim Kardashian. |
0.64 | ![]() Raquel Welch. |
0.63 | ![]() ![]() ![]() Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Kenya Moore. |
0.62 | ![]() Brianna Francisco. |
0.61 | ![]() ![]() Melyssa Ford, Ki Toy Johnson. |
0.60 | ![]() ![]() Lizz Robbins, Esther Baxter. |
0.59 | ![]() Jayne Mansfield, Buffie the Body. |
0.58 | ![]() ![]() Elizabeth Taylor, Deelishis. |
0.57 | ![]() Brigitte Bardot. |
0.56 | |
0.55 | ![]() ![]() Bria Myles, Barbie. |
As a rule of thumb, most thin women are more than 0.67 while most thick women are less.
Every year Playboy magazine picks a Playmate of the Year. Their measurements have been dutifully recorded in the Wikipedia. Here is how their WHR has gone up over time:
- 1960s: 0.62
- 1970s: 0.66
- 1980s: 0.67
- 1990s: 0.69
- 2000s: 0.70
That is roughly the same as the change from Sophia Loren to Gwyneth Paltrow.
A study by Devendra Singh of the University of Texas showed that men prefer women with a WHR between 0.72 and 0.68. This is just a dressed up way of saying they like thin women.
Singh says this has been true since the 1920s according to the measurements of Miss Americas and Playboy centrefolds.
I do not believe it: white men in North America from about 1945 to 1980 clearly preferred women well below 0.68. See above. And most black men still seem to. The average WHR of the women listed above who have appeared in black men’s swimsuit magazines in the 2000s is 0.61.
After all, Twiggy, at the upper end of Singh’s range of beauty, seemed shockingly thin in the 1960s – even to white people. But now that has become what white American women – far more so than white men – think is beautiful.
The changes that make a girl into a woman are the very ones that lower her WHR. More than any other single thing it shows that she is healthy and fertile. So it would not be surprising for men to like women with a low WHR.
One study showed that WHR gives a better idea whether someone will develop heart trouble later in life than does the BMI that doctors use. BMI only takes into account overall weight, not where it is. But belly fat is the worst kind for your heart. For women a WHR above 0.80 is dangerous, while for men anything more than 0.95 is bad news.
See also:
- Why I love thick women – why I love women who are 0.67 or less
- thick black women
- The ten most beautiful women in the world
- race and beauty
- How a man looks at a woman
- white beauty: a brief history
- Playboy
Today, to many women on TV lack a curvy shape. I agree that most men like a curvy shape, that’s why men(including white) make such a big deal about kim kardashian(sp). I think slim or large, a woman with an hour glass figure will attract a lot of attention.
I really,really, really dig your blog. I am going to add you to my blogs to visit on an upcoming post.
LikeLike
Thanks! Most women in Hollywood are not all that good looking, partly because the whole thin thing has been overdone.
LikeLike
I can understand Waist-Hip Ratio standard for health reasons but it is not accurate in measuring women’s curvature attractiveness to men. Why do you measure around the buttocks? Aren’t hips and buttocks two different things? I think some sort of Vernier Caliper should be used to measure from side to side instead of including the butt. That way you get a true and consistent hip size instead of all these different sized women with the same WHR. You can’t see hips from the side like you can the butt. Sophia Loren has hips; Kenya Moore has a big butt. Racquel Welch as hips; Buffy the Body has a big butt; Tyra Banks (now that she filled out) has hips; Bo Derek, with her narrow hips and flat butt, has a small curvature because of her even smaller waist. Anna Nicole with the same WHR as Kate Moss…give me a break!!! Kate looks like a man next to Anna.
LikeLike
Good comment. You cannot get everything about a woman, not even the shape of her body, into one number. Clearly. It is only a rough and ready number. It is used in studies because it is easy to measure. I found it interesting, which is why I wrote about it.
LikeLike
D*mn the bar is real low when it comes to white women. Most them white chicks got the body of a teen boy
LikeLike
I put in well-known white beauties for comparison. Speaking for myself, most of the women with a WHR less than Bo Derek’s seem too thin to me – too much like boys like you said.
LikeLike
Actually, they have performed a few studies using just front/back, and front&side female imagery on males of differing origins (at least Euro American, Afro American, and San Africans) that suggest males either generally liked women around .7 – .6, especially .6 on average, or they went all the way to the smallest WHR.
Btw, ‘Stephen’, you had a good point, however the gluteous maximous mattered significantly, and in one population a low side-WHR even figured to be more important than a low back/front WHR.
If you look up WHR on wiki (bare with me) they have link to actual studies, though, don’t know if there is an article (other than this one) on it yet.
True story, when I was an adolescent and had to stay home with nothing to do when my parent went to work, I’d sometimes mess around with pictures of swimsuit etc models changing the dimensions, and, after a while, I made them so hour-glass like that it lost its afect on me for a second, and that was scary so I stopped.
Truthfully, though I think WHR is useful, I agree with abagond’s comment following Steven’s.
There are so many things and qulities about the female body that naturally appeal to us that you can’t possibly get in one number (I think). The various overall indescribably female shapes of various parts of the female body are just pleasant, because we’re sexed based creatures, and no matter how the popular or socially (or media) induced concepts of pysical attractiveness change over the years, you’ll always see us males going after all kinds of women. Some of us, though few (one of my white school mates mainly dated VERY big women), even like them in the un healthy range — excluding the far bolemic or anorexic ranges (can’t speak for everyone of course).
Also, IMO, it freakin sucks that alot of women worry they’re fat when they’re medium, which even a little smaller than the average woman.
LikeLike
Thanks. I did not even know there were front-to-back studies. I just knew about the front ones.
LikeLike
Hello!
Interesting page.
It appears to me, though, that the WHR for many of the women listed here is incorrect. According to “Playboy” data, Marilyn Monroe was almost exactly a 0.706, for example, rather than a 0.63.
http://www.playboy.com/girls/playmates/directory/195312.html
Frequently, too, celebrities will claim a lower WHR than they actually have; so maybe that is some of the source of the apparent conflict between the studies and one’s perceptions.
If you would provide the sources you used to get the WHR for the women shown here, I would find that most helpful and useful; and I would greatly appreciate it!
Thanks for creating an interesting page.
Jenny
LikeLike
A woman’s measurements can change and they are not always reported honestly.
I do not remember all my sources, but in general I Googled the name along with “measurements”. Where I found more than one set of measurements, I picked the one seemed to best fit the picture I had.
A good share of the measurements come from the Wikipedia and imdb.com.
LikeLike
All right – I finally busted out the tape measure…shocking – 3 kids, 10 years added 10 inches.
My WHR is .77 – not bad…but its way more sand through the hour glass..sigh.
LikeLike
bummer calculated my WHR from 10 years ago…
It was a .66
LikeLike
That would explain why black and Latin men went for you more than white ones. Vida Guerra, at 0.68, is about as low as most white American men seem to be willing to go.
LikeLike
except my hubby – he is as red headed – blue eyed a white guy as you can get… always liked a girls back side.
But he likes em big, small and in between…he is just a butt man.
LikeLike
Great list, really very interesting (speaking as a white male). I wonder what J.Lo’s measurements are based on, because I couldn’t find any. Her WHR seems likely, but I strongly assume her waist is more than 60cm, as well as her butt is probably more than 90cm. Don’t you think so?
Plus I’d really like to know what your source was for the classic ladies, a la Jayne Mansfield, Brigitte Bardot and so on. Thanks in advance!
LikeLike
The imdb.com is a good place to go. So is just putting “meauresments of Jennifer Lopez” into Google. Often you will get more than one set of numbers: measurements change and people lie too. So you pick what seems to make the most sense.
LikeLike
i dont quite believe in this because i am a thick woman and my whr is 0.72. my waist is 29 inches and my hips are 40 inches.
i think the whr is liable to change if ur waist is larger or large in comparison to ur waist size.. exampple, for me to be a 0.67, i have to have hips size about 43 inches.. and for my height and frame, i would look frumpy! so i dont think it matters, as long as u come across as curvy.. for ur size and weight and height.. cos they all matter!
LikeLike
i don’t see what’s the whole point of the waist to hip ratio. they’re all women so why does this matter?
LikeLike
Kate Moss has the perfect whr.
LikeLike
Again with the studies. These studies don’t prove anything. Whr doesn’t determine a woman’s intelligence, health or beauty. I’ve seen too many examples in real life that contradict those studies. I think those people who conduct the studies should put their efforts on much more important things!
LikeLike
Oh and btw, Aishrawya Rai has the highest but is EASILY the most beautiful woman up there.
LikeLike
WHR is just a number, but an interesting one. It cannot be a measure of everything – not even of thickness, as zara points out in comment #17. It is too simple of a number for that.
Studies and surveys are not perfect, but going by the people you know is bound to be even less trustworthy. There are things you find out when you look at hundreds or thousands of people that would be impossible if you just look at dozens.
LikeLike
anon i love the fact you speak your mind!
LikeLike
Thank you lil’vina! I also enjoy and love reading your points and it’s nice to have at least one person who shares the same views and experience.
You don’t back down to no one.:) I think it is refreshing when people bring balance and perspective to a blog that is so unbalanced and honestly, downright mean to a certain group of women (thin) who they try to “level” because they feel that we have it easier. In the process, you are degrading and putting down an entire group of “black” women that claim that you love so much. The “you” in this statement is abagond and others who have done this.
Lil’vina, in this blog and in everyday life, keep standing up for yourself and your GOD given appearance. Don’t apologize to no one and start looking at it as a blessing.
LikeLike
Having stated the above, I do like abagond’s blogs dealing with issues that are relevant, such as Angela Davis, Obama and other admirable people.
LikeLike
well i appreciate it and it’s good to have someone that i can relate to. God bless you anon.
LikeLike
actually I think this is more than a tad stupid (not only is it very shallow, also it is not scientifically correct. because as in all “scientific reports” out there it is way to much “scientific” than sensuous. and really, sex is about sensuality and not mathematics. thats the truth. every woman can be beautiful and there are a lot of diversified beauty, bodies can be looked as physically beautiful in so many ways, and actually the human mind findd beauty more in forms and living creatures that moves, and souls more than 2d-mathematics.
well! that said, I really just wanted to come here to brag! I´m a european woman with 0,63, actually. 34D-25-40 or rather 95-64-102. my hips a la side are about 95 I think. haha. good thing i´m anonymous though, I really just wanted to brag. 😛
LikeLike
and btw I would like to be bigger, like 105-75-105 or something
LikeLike
and this report is just so naive. I think you find it fascinating to “measure up” something and just because of this uhm..scientific report have been made by some nihilist person its like the buzz. for ** sake, you _can´t_ measure the allure of woman bodies with only one measurement..
I´m sure of that if a new report came telling it is not the whr, but the _shape_ of a woman body, like the volume ( i .e apple, cello, column, vase, banana wth) was the real thing to catalogize beauty with then you´d all go for that. sorry but you just can´t measure those things. Its a matter of flavour for the day and sensuality, you can´t hold it in. let it go och go with the flow. man cant control beauty or women.(or men) a lot of people like a lot of things, not just one.
LikeLike
Bi, that was very well stated!
LikeLike
I’m a biracial woman married to a white (German) man and all I have to say is white men are VERY attracted to curvy/thick dark women. At least the ones that I have encountered. I lived in Germany for 10 years and was practically mobbed everywhere I went (and don’t get me started on my visits to France…) and certainly never suffered for a date. And even here in the States the men stare at me everywhere I go.
My DH put it this way: he’s met plenty of thin women whom he thought were attractive or pretty in an abstract way but it’s only the thick ones that make his blood boil. And he said that he’d always thought that thong underwear looked ridiculous until he saw me in it (just the sight of me makes him pant, even in a tight turtleneck sweater and jeans). And he said that one nice thing about thick women is that when they DO get fat it tends to collect in all the right places (I was a size 16 with 38K breasts when pregnant) whereas others just get belly rolls and a wide butt.
Anyway, my measurements are 42(32G bra)-32-45 which makes me a size 12 (I had 2 kids and am SLOWLY losing the weight) and gives me a WHR of only 0.71. But I’m still “thick” with full, high, round breasts and behind and a small waist and flat stomach. I don’t know why the ratio is so high because I’m DEFINITELY THICK.
One major problem with a pear-shaped figure is buying jeans. AAAGH! I have to buy a size 12 to get it to go over my ghetto-booty but then I have to cinch the belt really tight to keep them from falling off. And if I buy shirts in size L then my breasts are straining but if I buy size XL then my waist disappears in the tent. Now I buy XL and have it tailored but that’s not very cheap. T-shirts I buy L and try not to feel self-conscious about it.
All of my white friends and relatives wear a smaller size than me, even the really fat ones. It’s very depressing. They are all really shocked to find out I wear a size 12 but it’s because they don’t understand about “thick” women.
BTW, my mom is thick and she’s German and over 50 and drop-dead gorgeous. My father is black, so I guess it figures…
LikeLike
Vanessa – I am scottish and german and I too suffer from the problems of Fitting my girls into an XL shirt and then having my waist disappear.
I find buying a lane bryant shirt and tailoring it is the best way.
I am a 14 – 16 becuase my thighs are thick too – but a girl who can leg press 500+ lbs is bound to have big legs.
Lane bryant tailored shirts rock. New York and Co shirts Never EVER fit my bust. I am a medium in a t-shirt everywhere except my girls…which spill out the top if I try to wear anything but an XL. and Old Navy Diva jeans go along way because they sit at your hips, so no waist to synch in. I am 46-34-48 – so a bit thicker than you.. and its true about thick girls gaining weight- even when I was a size 20 (gasp) and weighed in at 225lbs (after my third son)- men would give me alot of attention…because the weight was distributed over my frame. I still had a hour glass shape.
Anyway – I too have found that a tailor is a curvy girls best friend.
LikeLike
Cool response! Nice to know I’m not the only one out there…
Yes, I’ve got some Lane Byrant tailored shirts but now that I’ve lost weight I’m having them taken in, as well. They’re among my favorite shirts, though, so it’s worth having them altered.
It seems like designers haven’t noticed that our body shape exists. But if you look at the clothes-hanger types on runways it’s no real surprise.
And, yeah, it’s the general hourglass shape that attracts them, whatever the size.
LikeLike
See I don’t agree with some of what you’ve said. It’s not just thicker women that have curves (I’m thin and my WHR is 0.62)… in fact I would assume most of those women are fit not fat because of their tiny waists – so it’s not skinny vs curvy thing. It’s skinny vs fat or curvy vs ?straight? But yes I have noticed a lot of celebs that have very high WHR. But it’s not all about WHR – there’s no definite answer because we are different sizes. I obsessed about this for a period of time and realised that two people of the same WHR can look totally different — it isn’t to do with height; it’s about size. A person with a teeny tiny waist will look different to a person with a bigger waist who has the same WHR. You can even look at Vanessa’s comment “my measurements are 42(32G bra)-32-45 which … gives me a WHR of only 0.71. But I’m still “thick” … I don’t know why the ratio is so high” Let’s just put her build/structure at XL for arguments sake. To be similar in appearance a S would have to be approx 0.6; M – 0.65; L – 0.65-0.7
LikeLike
Right, WHR is just a number. An interesting number, but no one number can possibly express how a woman’s body looks. For the same reason, neither can words like “fat”, “thick” and “thin”. They are just starting points, words that will not apply well to many cases.
LikeLike
you can take to women with the same weight
who wear the same size clothing
and they look totally different.
Its not just about WHR, or weight, or size clothes.
Its about muscle structure, and bone structure and how your body places fat, how you gain and lose weight…etc.
LikeLike
Yeah but WHR implies where fat is going to be placed. So it is important, but instead of being one answer it can be divided into several, based on a persons bone size. In my experience people with smaller bones can and usually do, have smaller waists. So the smaller the waist the less ‘hip’ you need to reach one number, but to be similar in appearance to someone whose waist is larger, the number needs to be lower. Now my personal opinion is that WHR and body fat percentage are the two most important factors that people see. So it’s not just about WHR but that’s a main part.
**please note that I’m talking about flat/fit waists
LikeLike
I’m 5’1½,” 115 pounds, and measure 33/28/36. The 36 is mostly backside as I have narrow hips. My WHR is 0.78, which is apparently less than “ideal.” However, I am happily engaged to a guy who prefers my form to the other women listed here, and couldn’t care less about mass opinion. Moreover, I couldn’t care less about mass opinion regarding males, either, as I find square jaws and a clean-shaven look to be incredibly UNattractive. I like oval jaws on men and stubble, which my fiance has. I’d encourage greater variation in tastes among both genders as I doubt most of us fit either the supposed male or female ideal.
LikeLike
Reading further, I see racial comments, so I’d like to add that my fiance and I are both very white. We’re also very geeky and rather introverted, enjoying nerdy topics like literature, RPG video games, abstraction, etc. As I understand it, most of the populace, regardless of race, is very extroverted and concrete. This could also further explain our unusual preferences compared to the masses.
LikeLike
“A study by Devendra Singh of the University of Texas showed that men prefer women with a WHR between 0.72 and 0.68. This is just a dressed up way of saying they like thin women.”
That’s not true because it’s a ratio, meaning proportional. You can be thin and have a WHR of .8, if you have a skinny boyish figure, and you can be overweight and have a WHR of .65 or whatever, if your natural physique is very hourglass. For instance.
LikeLike
my ideal woman would have a whr of .5 to .6
example 40-20-40 or 40-24-40.(.5 the better of the two).
LikeLike
I don’t usually comment on posts like this one (though I read them), but I just have to add:
WHR can be very misleading if you want to use it to judge someone’s appearance (or attractiveness). But I can see the point; in general, women do have lower WHR than men. Historically, women with lower WHR (if we interpret “low WHR as “hourglass higure”) were considered more attractive, in most parts of the world. Today the image (at least media image) is a bit different.
I am around 0.61 and it’s considered unattractive.
LikeLike
Considered unattractive by who? That sounds like a great WHR, though like you say, it can be misleading.
LikeLike
Considered unattractive by who? That sounds like a great WHR, though like you say, it can be misleading.
By Eastern European men, I guess. I don’t know about other parts of the world. Then again, I don’t live in “other parts of the world”.
I understand different cultures have different ideas about what’s attractive, but that doesn’t help much (while growing up) if you’re the one with “undesirable” figure. There are always people and their personal preferences, but I am not talking about personal preferences here.
As a (straight) woman, I can not really judge female beauty. But still, I have to say I find women with lower WHR (on your list at least) more beautiful. However, that could be because of my own WHR.
(off topic) I know you are a man and I guess you’re not interested in the opposite side of the story (what’s considered a handsome man), but it would be interesting to read something about that, too, especially when it comes to race.
Finally, I must notice there are only a few contemporary white celebrities with low WHR on your list. (When I say “contemporary”, I mean “women who became famous in the 90s and 00s, maybe even 80s”). Almost none. The lowest are Adriana Lima and Kim Kardashian (are they even white?) I don’t know if it’s because you made this list, but seriously, I can not think of a white celebrity who has a hourglass figure.
LikeLike
There’s something like this to for men, it’s the shoulder to waist ratio. The shoulders being 30% broader than the waist as the ideal proportion for men. Don’t remember if that’s the exact number, but it’s something like that.
LikeLike
WHR does not define female beauty. I’ve seen incredibly beautiful women who doesn’t have a low whr. And the other way around.
Beauty has to be judged by the total package, not just the distance from your waist to hips. It is more intangible than that.
However, I do agree that there should be more posts about men’s attractiveness. It would be very interesting.
LikeLike
I agree island girl, HWR is not the entire package, yet is in one of those instant visual cues a man can see from a distance that catches his interest. It’s comparable to the way height is for men. There are good looking short guys, but if that same handsome short guy was 6’3″ he’d get way more attention from women.
LikeLike
“My DH put it this way: he’s met plenty of thin women whom he thought were attractive or pretty in an abstract way but it’s only the thick ones that make his blood boil.”
I don’t agree with this statement at all. I’m sure no man would kick Sade, Laryn Hill or Sannan out of bed. I keep defuting this because I hate generalizations that put one group at a disadvantage and others as superior. When the truth is- beauty is not that black and white.
LikeLike
I agree with Island Girl that there is no way that something like beauty can be baked down to a number as simple as WHR. But it is a good quck-and-dirty number that does affect how men see women.
I would not kick Sade or Sanaa out of my bed, but if they stood next to a woman with a much lower WHR, I might not see them at first. And a low WHR does make my blood boil.
LikeLike
Mira said:
“Finally, I must notice there are only a few contemporary white celebrities with low WHR on your list. (When I say “contemporary”, I mean “women who became famous in the 90s and 00s, maybe even 80s”). Almost none.”
I noticed that too while making the list. I think that is because the hourglass shape was considered beautiful by White Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, but now they think thin women are beautiful. More on that here:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/white-beauty-a-brief-history/
LikeLike
This is hardly the first time people have requested that I write about handsome men, but being a straight male I am not the one who can write it. It would have to be a guest post.
LikeLike
tulio says:
I agree island girl, HWR is not the entire package, yet is in one of those instant visual cues a man can see from a distance that catches his interest. It’s comparable to the way height is for men. There are good looking short guys, but if that same handsome short guy was 6′3″ he’d get way more attention from women.
I wrote about the height of men when it comes to dating on my blog.
Here’s the link:
http://neckback.blogspot.com/2009/12/tall-women-not-dating-short-men-wtf.html
LikeLike
@ Vindicator
True, women tend to prefer tall men. I think it’s almost universal in all the cultures.
LikeLike
@Mira
It’s a shame though! Women will never learn!
LikeLike
Well, true, I am afraid. (I read your post and will post my comment on your blog).
LikeLike
“One study even showed that women with a low WHR give birth to children with higher intelligence.”
Of course. White and Asian women have lower WHR’s, while black’s higher.
LikeLike
No, if anything whites and Asians tend to have higher WHRs.
LikeLike
Pete,
Do all of us a favor, stfu and go out into the world some more and stop hiding behind a computer with your cowardly racist and sexist views. That’s how an angry racist white man respond when it comes to views that are different from yours.
LikeLike
i see lerman is back sprouting his ignorance. “sigh”
LikeLike
That last comment could be misinterpreted. I only meant that SOME black women could use that as an excuse. Well, all women really.
No offense to anyone.
LikeLike
Just thought I’d mention this here…
Back in the heyday of classic scientific racism, things like WHR were called “exagerated sexual diamorphism” and were used to determine whether or not a given race or people was highly evolved or not.
The classic determinist position was that as man evolved, the sexes specialized. This, of course, was based on the fact that white, upper-class victorian women were set off from the men in a very exagerated fashion. Given that the classic scientific racists worked using an inverted scientific methodology (i.e. they presumed that white people – and especially rich white people – were “obviously” more evolved and then hand-picked their data to fit), exagerated sexual diamorphism seemed to work – at least for those white anthros and biologists who studied native americans and certain Asian groups….
The problem came, of course, when the scientists who studied black americans and africans got ahold of this data. “Wait a minute”, they said. “This can’t be true because then that would mean blacks are more evolved than whites!” So these folks turned the theory straight on its head: now exagerated sexual diamorphism was supposed to indicate a low level of relative evolution.
The story just goes to show how stupid and silly it is to try to develop determinist theories of human culture from physical traits.
LikeLike
why are my comments being discarded?
LikeLike
Good comments @Thaddeus. Very enlightening 🙂
LikeLike
well alrighty then. back in the saddle. they are showing up. thanks 🙂
LikeLike
AO:
It looks like that was at your end: I did not see any of your comments in moderation or in the spam filter.
LikeLike
Thaddeus said:
“exagerated sexual diamorphism was supposed to indicate a low level of relative evolution. “
I have heard that end of the argument but I never knew it used to be the other way when it favoured whites.
LikeLike
This whr theory is so flawed. And here’s why. I’ve seen women who had the most hourglassed figures, ones that would make Abagond do backflips, but once they have hit menopause, they turn into an apple. That happens to most women because of hormone changes.
So, how is this explained? When a woman is younger, pre-menopause, whether she is hourglass, pear, ruler or apple, chances are there is no great threat, given the young age. But when a woman is older, and the hourglass turns into an apple, how does this justifiy this study?
This is not well researched at all. And it is one of those things that will change. BMI is much more important, according to health professionals that I know.
LikeLike
I have heard that end of the argument but I never knew it used to be the other way when it favoured whites.
Almost all of these primitive biodeterminist theories got turned on their head at one point or another when data from the field contradicted the theory.
The most notable example was the skull shape theory. Supposedly “Doric” (highbrowed, upward thrusting) skulls were more evolved than other kinds of skulls, because Western Europeans had a higher incidence of these types of skulls.
Well, it turns out that science then discover that there are places in African where Doric skulls are found in greater concentrations than anywhere else in the world.
Overnight, Doric skulls became the mark of the sub-evolved.
LikeLike
Exactly.
There are also theories about sexual dimorphism, but I am not sure if those were ever “turned on their head”.
@ islandigrl
While WHR can be (sometimes) used as an indicator for body shape (and therefore, possible obesity), BMI is more important.
Also, women with high WHR can be very fertile and often do not have any problems during childbirth. Some women with high WHR can have major problems during childbirth. Just because hourglass figure looks “more fertile” to some men, it doesn’t mean it really is.
LikeLike
Mira,
Exactly! Somewhere along the way, a myth began that higher whr cannot be fertile or have difficulity. But that is simply untrue. If it were, third world countries, where most women are thin, would not be overpopulated.
This is simply an urban legend or myth which coherts some women into believing that they are unhealthy, unattractive and infertile.
Ladies, make sure to watch your BMI. That doesn’t mean to try to be thin. Be your size, but reduce the amount of fat.
LikeLike
I think it’s just one of those myths and stereotypes that just seem logical. That’s why so many people believe it.
In theory, round hips, small waist, large breasts- those are the things that just seem like an indicator of fertility (or, in the case of small waist, that the woman isn’t already pregnant). However, just because it seems like it, it doesn’t mean it’s true.
To quote Abagond:
More than any other single thing it (WHR) shows that she is healthy and fertile.
See. “It shows”. It doesn’t mean it really is, just hat some men see it that way.
Not all men see it that way, though.
LikeLike
“The changes that make a girl into a woman are the very ones that lower her WHR. ”
The changes that make a girl into a woman is how she carries herself. Her MENTAL maturity. Responsibility. How she treats others. Care for her family. Always striving to improve herself and situation. Projecting an image that exemplifies class, intelligence and grace.
Mira, I wholeheartedly agree. It is all about perception. In the same way that most preceive blondes as more beautiful or adored. Somewhere along the way, blonde became the ‘platiunum standard’ for female beauty. Now, if you see a blonde, you will preceive her accordingly. Don’t get me wrong, there are beautiful blondes, but I don’t think anymore so than others.
LikeLike
I’ve read somewhere that men perceive blondes as “more healthy” or “younger”, or something. I think those studies were about white people only, so I don’t think it’s about race. In any case, it’s a nonsense.
Blondes seem interesting because they are rare. Same goes for blue or green eyes. In fact, blue eyes serve no purpose; they are often more sensitive than the dark ones. Yet, they “survived” till this day because people found them more attractive.
Again, I am talking about white stereotypes. But in any case, things like this one are silly.
Sometimes, what is percieved as beautiful in one culture is something that is rare. Other times, most common is considered to be beautiful.
But in any case those are just stereotypes. Some cultures, for example, consider thin women to be more graceful and healthier and therefore more feminine.
Shape of a female pelvis is different than male. That is true. However, even skinny women have large pevis of a feminine shape.
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve read that too about blondes. That they are preceived as more innocent.
I agree, anything that is rare gets more attention.
I don’t know what culture considers thin women healthier and feminine.lol But variety is great.
Sometimes I just don’t get abagond and others who think that thin women aren’t feminine. Everytime I watch “Dancing with the Stars” and see those professional dancers, their femininity is breathtaking. Yes, they are thin and have beautiful shapes.
LikeLike
I like Abagond’s attitude. He likes women who are in between, not too big and not too skinny. What is wrong with that. The average woman probably may find it difficult to be skinny and being too big is unhealthy. So if a man likes an “in between woman”, what is wrong with that? I wish more men were like that. Fortunately, for black women, many black men like a women who has a little meat on her bones. As long as black women don’t go too far and lose their shape all together by gaining too much weight, it’s all good. So many black women say, ” Black men like bigger women” and then they gain too much weight. I know it is not possible for every women to be the ” in between” woman. But so what?. There are men who like skinny, medium women, and big women. Abagond is merely saying what he likes personally.
LikeLike
I know it is not possible for every women to have the kind of shape that Abagond likes. So many men want a women with huge breast, super small waist, and huge behind. I mean women who are shaped like this are just blessed, I suppose. Most women are probably not shaped that way. I don’t look at women alot because I am a woman, so I don’t study them like Abagond, but most women probably aren’t exact replicas of Pent House models. And yes, all of us want to be appreciated for more than just our physical appearances. But let’s be honest with ourselves. Most of us have our personal preferences in terms of what we find attractive. I am not saying that people should be obsessed with it. In the end, you should care about a person for who they are because beauty fades with time. But alot of us are attracted to a certain look. Maybe Abagond is just saying what he is attracted to outwardly. And for women who are offended by this, we have to be honest with ourselves. I think men are more visual than women. Women I think care about love, intimacy, communication. We are often attracted to the men we love, not love the men we are attracted to. Men are the opposite. It may be unfortunate. But that’s is often how men are. Fortunately, I think( or hope) men become less visual as they grow older. Maybe, I don’t know.
LikeLike
And women, lets be real. How many of us have gone nuts over a man because he was extremely attractive outwardly. I know I have. Maybe some of you are deeper than the average person but don’t attack people because they like a certain look. Hopefully, there are people who like are kinds of people. It would be wonderful if life was that way. Then, all of us would feel included.
LikeLike
Some women are offended by this because of the same reason some women are offended when men or society prefers thin women. So why is it o.k. when a thicker woman feels underappreciated but when a thin woman does, she is overreacting.
Abagond is not saying just any “in between” is great, those “in betweens” have to have a very specific look.
My issue with all of this is when you downplay, insult or degrade the type that you don’t like. Essentially, what I’ve gathered from all of this is that thin women are unhealthy, unattractive and infertile.
Who really wants to be depicted as that?
And don’t be fooled, women are very much into appearance and are visual. But they keep things in perspective.
LikeLike
But I didn’t get the impression that Abagond was insulting anyone. He is just stating what he likes. He didn’t use offensive language or any thing like that. And don’t think I am supporting him because I look like an exact replica of what he likes because I don’t. I would not consider myself super hooked up. I just don’t understand why so many thin women would overreact. They are constantly glorified in the media and in the fashion industry so if some men say, ” I am different” What is the problem? He thinks that being too thin or too fat( he also said he didn’t like fat women) isn’t attractive. Maybe, he could have been a little more delicate about how he feels, but I don’t think he was offensive in terms of his language. And yes he is very specific about what he likes in ” in between” but he is saying what HE likes. Look, I hope I didn’t offend you. But people like what they like. And yes, I think women do keep things in perpective and it would be nice if men were less shallow but I think it is important for men to say that everyone doesn’t support what the media puts out there. That the very thin women aren’t the only women that is considered desirable. It helps women who do have a big butt and may have felt uncomfortable about it. Many black women are shaped differently. Many have big butts and breast and it is nice to hear a man say he appreciates that.
LikeLike
But you know what, I agree with you. Sometimes men do go overboard with the obsession with looks. And maybe he made very thin women feel undesirable. I don’t think his intention was to make anyone feel that way. I think he is saying I am one man that doesn’t agree with what everyone else may find attractive. “I’m different” and this is what I like. And no, I don’t want men to objectify women. We are not sex objects. But I think his intention is to say ” that I am one man that likes a certain type of women and this is how a lot of black men feel” But yes I agree with you. Men should keep things in perspective.
LikeLike
I don’t know what culture considers thin women healthier and feminine.lol But variety is great.
All over Eastern Europe. That’s the one I am sure about. And when I say thin, I don’t mean anorexia thin. But not thick or fat either. A bit of curves, sure, but nothing too big. Large breasts are ok, but not hips or bottoms.
@ jeri
Some of these things sound a bit insulting because women (well, people in general) can’t change shape of their body. It’s not just about your weight, which is a thing you can change. But if your shape is pear, you’ll always have round hips and big bottom, no matter what. If you are thin, even if you gain weight you won’t have low WHR.
So, it’s not in between. Whether you have that body shape, or you don’t.
In other words, stuff like this post can be insulting in a way. Just like some women write about tall men, and tall men only. Like short men are not masculine enough. Which is nonsense.
My WHR is about 0.62 and my body is shaped just the way Abagond likes. So it’s not about me. Still, I know what is like when men talk about one body shape as “more feminine” and “the best” and that is not your body shape.
LikeLike
Look, there are men who like all types of women. When I was in my late twenties I was very thin. I have gained a little weight since then but, no, I didn’t have a body like Bria Myles or Deelishis, where the women have extremely large behinds, small waist etc But I never had a problem attracting a man. I don’t think men were rejecting me because I wasn’t shaped like a hip hop video model. And even after I gained a little weight, my husband still loves and respects me. No, I don’t want people to be obsessed with looks as if looks are the only thing that matters but there are plenty of men who are attracted to thin women. There are even men who are attracted to extremely big women, although less common, but they do exist. What concerns me is when men refuse to have anything to do with a person because of their looks or body types. When they go too far. For instance, some men refuse to date an extremely dark women, etc. And yes men can lose sight of what is trully important. But if you are saying that, that people can be too attached to a certain look, then yes, now that I think of it, your right. Everyone can’t look like Bria Myles, Melyssa Ford, etc. And It is unfair to expect women to look like this. It is just when I read his article I just thought he was just expressing his own individual preference.
LikeLike
jeri, have read my last comment in the “Black women that white men like” post? I wrote it in response to your inquiry.
As for waist-to-hip ratio: scientifically objectifying women since 1993! The issue I have with these types of measures is that they almost always end up being used as a way to discriminate and/or “prove” why one person is better of in life and inherently superior to the next.
LikeLike
I didn’t read through all the responses, but did anyone mention that since the sixties, fashion has become increasing dominated by gay men while we’ve become increasing obsessed with youth(aka teen) culture? This would give the false impression of thinner women being more popular than they are; straight men are almost universally attracted to women with a WHR below .70 … As you’ve pointed out, that doesn’t necessarily mean thick v. thin, but it does largely mean curvy.
LikeLike
Mira,
“Some of these things sound a bit insulting because women (well, people in general) can’t change shape of their body. It’s not just about your weight, which is a thing you can change.”
I 100% agree. This is why it is so insulting because women can’t change their shape, no more than a short man can change his height. That is just how GOD made us. Any complaints, speak with HIM.
I do appreciate your objectiveness regarding this situation even though you are .62 and being able to understand other women’s situations.
Natasha,
“As for waist-to-hip ratio: scientifically objectifying women since 1993! The issue I have with these types of measures is that they almost always end up being used as a way to discriminate and/or “prove” why one person is better of in life and inherently superior to the next.”
Hat’s off to you! Thank you! That is what I’ve been trying to express.
This has only existed since 1993? Where is the long term evidence and extensive study over a span? Studying different body types from youth to old age?
Who conducted this study? Sir Mix Alot?
The study is so flawed on so many levels. First, as stated, how do you explain hourglass women who turn into apples after menapause?
How do you explain that the Japenese have the longest life spans with lower disease including heart? I haven’t seen one Japanese person who is built like a video vixen.
And where is the long term proof and evidence?
My issue with this is, as Natasha stated, that this is one way to prove that one group of people is superior to another.
People, especially minorites, should get enough of these types of tests. Ones that ‘prove’ that whites are superior to others. So why would we encourage these types of tests or studies to ‘prove’ that one type of woman is superior to another?
It is another agenda.
LikeLike
Pauline Crespo: 33-22-47; a WHR of 0.47
Angel Lola Luv: 34-22-40; a WHR of 0.55
Katie Leung: 34-20-33; a WHR of 0.61
Kristin Kreuk: 32-23-36; a WHR of 0.64
LikeLike
IAm 17 years old, but I first realized that i was growing up when my boyish body started to look more curvy, now my bottom is round and my upper part is skinny, i think its very beautiful, if i ever do get a boyfriend or get marry, hes gonna be very happy
LikeLike
Nicki Minaj: 34-26-45; WHR of 0.58
LikeLike
I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED.
SO IF WAIST TO HIP RATIO IS SO IMPORTANT, WHY ARE ALL THE WOMEN IN WHIT MEN’S MAGAZINE’S SLIM AND HAVE VERY LITTLE HIPS?
WHITE MEN CLEARLY PREFER WOMEN WITH SMALL HIPS/BUTTS, SO A LOW WHR WOULD IMPLY THAT THE WOMAN’S HIPS ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN HER WAIST (OR HER WAIST IS MUCH SMALLER THAN HER HIPS) EITHER WAY IT WOULD CREATE THE ILLUSION OF WIDER HIPS/SMALLER WAIST.
HOW DO YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LOW WHR = SKINNY OTHER THAN THE PREFERENCE OF WHITE MEN?
LikeLike
ONE LAST THING, IF WHR IS SO UNIVERSAL WHY DO WHITE MEN AND BLACK MEN PREFER SUCH DIFERENT TYPES OF WOMEN?
BEAUTY IS NOT UNIVERAL.
LikeLike
I DON’T SEE WHITE MEN GOING CRAZY OVER BUFFY THE BODY OR ESTER (I MEAN THE AVERAGE WHITE MAN OR A CONCENIOUS IN THE WHITE COMMUNITY) SO I DON’T GET HOW THAT STUDY PROVES ALL MEN PREFER A LOW WHR. THE MOST ADORED WOMAN TODAY IS MEGAN FOX AND SHE HAS NO HIPS/BUTTS
LikeLike
Steph, there’s this little key on the left side of your keyboard labeled “Caps Lock”. Please press it.
LikeLike
a woman can have a spoon size vs hourglass and still be considered ,”fine.” Rihanna is what many guys consider having a nice shape. not having an hourglass doesn’t mean you are void of a nice shape. also, ppl are using shape and size interchangeably. they are both very different. you can be shapely and slim or shapely and thick. conversely, you can be without shape and slim, or without shape and thick!
LikeLike
this deserves the Nobel Prize for Mathematics. I’m serious! I knew math was good for something, I just didn’t know what… until now!
Keep up the good work! you’ve made me a fan for life.
LikeLike
LOL I think its funny how the list gets black are the WHR gets lower. Mine is .72, I heard .7 is ideal but truth be told I have put on weight since college. Hopefully I will be motivated to loose it and the ratio will get lower.
LikeLike
Oh my, Y ………….
http://diversao.terra.com.br/arteecultura/noticias/0,,OI4441212-EI3615,00-Livro+reune+imagens+dos+maiores+e+mais+belos+bumbuns+femininos.html#tphotos
It just so happens this item came up on my server today, so, in the name of a contribution to this subject, Ill bring it in.
I beleive women can have a very shaply and attractive booty in all sixes and shapes and shades
LikeLike
LOL @ B.R. those women are a buxom bunch!
LikeLike
I gotta say…THANK YOU FOR THIS!
I am a white, 16-year-old girl, (Could I feel any more pressure to be thin??) and I have a .65 WHR.
Knowing that I can be categorized with all those sexy ladies definitely makes me feel better about not being a 00slim 🙂
LikeLike
“just saying what he is attracted to outwardly. And for women who are offended by this, we have to be honest with ourselves. I think men are more visual than women. Women I think care about love, intimacy, communication. We are often attracted to the men we love, not love the men we are attracted to. Men are the opposite. It may be unfortunate. But that’s is often how men are. Fortunately, I think( or hope) men become less visual as they grow older. Maybe, I don’t know.”
hm, I dont think that’s the truth about men. I believe men want intimacy and communication as much as us women. But in our culture, females are more often being objectificated and the USA often forget to make men something to regard as “attractive” which is degrading to both me and women. instead men are told to be the “providers”.
I believe people are mostly socialized into all this. a girl could have a penthouse body but if her personality isnt good, it doesnt matter. i often get compliments but it just feels shallow anyhow. it’s just a body. people just think all other people have these permanent ideals, but in reality people are pretty adabtable and arent having fixations of body parts like in the media. you still can like a certain shape like Abagond says he does, but it’s often flexible. anyway, off topic. people like different things. im from sweden and a lot of people are blond and thin here. so the men doesnt have a fixation with blondness and thinness, and often like more exotic girls with more curves. figures doesnt it? I also believe that if men are regarded as more of attractive, sensual individuals with their own integrity, they arent gonna objectify female bodies as much because it’s less shallow and they dont have to confuse status with other people’s bodies as much. I thought abagond’s post was interesting because it presented ONE ideal out of 100. I also find it curious that afroamerican men, (so to say)and white men often have different ideal’s. that’s obviously not in the blood which makes it quite apparent that it’s about society influence. yeah, hetero men often like hourglass-shaped women and female parts, just like I like manly parts of the body, but more often they dont care about if the WHR is 0,64 or 0,78, as long as some kind of female shape is there. there are a lot of men who like small breasts for example, and different shapes of breasts. people are pretty complicated beings after all.. Im very hourglassy myself (0,64, which btw you could consider as ‘too much’ whr. some men doesnt even like curvy women with small waists.) but as it turns out, people care more about your personality and personal
‘sensuality’, not your measuremets.
LikeLike
not too be any more off topic or contradictive of the above post or anything, but it would be pretty interesting if women made sincere lists of ideal perfection just as males sometimes do. 😉
like off male waist shoulder-ratios, shoulder to neck-length, thigh measurements etc and such. 🙂
LikeLike
(and now suddenly this comment thread got very scientific with a lot of ladies taking over, when it probably originally was meant to be more of a fun post. 😀 sorry Abagond.)
LikeLike
Hmm… I was just thinking how much Photoshop have been use in all those photos on this post? 😀
Regards,
The Jennifer Lopez discography Guy
LikeLike
Hey Abagond, like your site.
The trend for decreasing WHRs to be more desired the further back you look in white history goes much farther than 1960. In the Victorian era white women wore corsets and bustles:
The overall effect gives a WHR near .3!
@ Steph: You’re right, a lower WHR doesn’t mean a woman is thin, it means she has an hourglass shape. White males tend to prefer thinnish women with lowish WHRs – around .7 according to research. Generally this means they like women with average hips/butts and toned bellies. But then again there are plenty of FAs out there, white or black, who like women with fat everywhere. (Ev-ree-where!) People are different.
LikeLike
idk..im kinda excited!!..lol im a pear shape,i always thought i had a funny looking body at 5’1..lol hmm my WHR is 0’72..sooo.. hmm i like the fact im soo close to what men find attracive.. lol the funny thing is now tht i understand it,i always thoughmy body was kinda ‘masculine’, with the linebacker shoulders and small chest..does this mean they’ll be magnetically drawn to me now???….lol anyway, i have a 26 inch waist, trying to lose a few more inches!!((: i lost 32 pounds a while back..ill definitly be bellow 0.70 sooon enuff..
LikeLike
holy crap!…i got the curves just like angelina jolie!! (((((: OMG hmmm kinda similiar…i think she is pear shaped too!!
LikeLike
I’m apparently very overweight. I’m 129lbs and 5’4. I did a bmi calulation and my ideal weight for my height is 110 lbs. I exercise 5 days a week and walk to work and eat very healthy and have found myself unable to get down to 110lbs without starving myself.
My measurements are 30G-22-36 . I’ve always felt pressured to be thin because half of my family is Japanese. this list makes me feel much better about my weight because it shows that it is how you carry weight that counts.
Most people are shocked to find out I weigh 129lbs
thank you for this great artical. still I must say that a woman’s measurements aren’t what makes her beautiful. I think all shapes are beautiful =)
LikeLike
Ellen Rocche: 5.9 and carries it off superbly!
Nothing more to add to the various angles of the curves debate, except to say that they speak for themselves and no statistical or evolutionary theorising about them adds to their intrinsic beauty. The louder the curves speak “Woman” to me, the more I feel man… and the better I feel!
LikeLike
I peersonally think that all of you guys should stop fighting because we should all have peace. lets hold hands.
LikeLike
btw i think fat or skinny we all beautifull and remember that we are pefect the way we are so lets consider holding hands and stop fighting. no bad words plase.it just hurts my feeelings.
LikeLike
^
LikeLike
There is no way thats what Paris Hilton is, her butt is flat as a board. sooo many of these ARE WRONG. I was googling them and comparing, very wrong.
I’m a ‘0.67 and I weigh 45 kilos. I’m a 24 inch waist, 36 inch hip. woohoo im the same as Jlo, only with thinner legs and arms and a flat belly.
So basically that’s good because none of it can account for fat – if I was chubby Id have even larger hips, and a smaller waist from being sedentary- I also have a really hard stomach and strong muscles on my sides, which would make my waist larger than if I didn’t work out (look at jessica Biel), and since the fat from my hips has lessened that’s another strike from the HWR. Oh well, at least I have a flat stomach and no fucking love handles… gross. I can wear mid driffs without looking gross.
They say fatter women have a lower HWR but i’d rather have a low HWR and be slim. I wish I was a stick like twiggy, but unfortunatley for me and fortunately for my boyfriend and every red blooded male; My butt is incredibly round and quite shapely (I always get comments, always, since I was 13 actually) so the size in proportion to my waist is not average, not many women have that,
and so I KNOW that some of the measurements up there are false, like gwyenth paltrow and stuff. Lol Ive never heard anyone talk about some of those women the way they talk about JLo, who has the same HWR I have.
You know who has the best HWR? CATHERINE DENEVUE. well, in the photos I have seen in a bikini, I love her body!!
an example of a non-existant waist? Cameron Diaz. Poor woman has no curves, no hips.. eek.
LikeLike
[…] And just for fun, I did some unnecessary yet absurdly fascinating research on body measurements. Apparently, the ideal measurements are considered to be a waist- hip ratio (WHR) – or waist divided by hip- of under 0.7 for women and 0.9 for men. (FTR, I did not make the cut.) I also learned that WHR has been used in studies of health, beauty and even intelligence. (1) […]
LikeLike
Ok now I feel huge.. My measurements are 44-35-46,WHR 0.76, but because of my lenght and wide shoulders I usually need a size 16, or even 18… But my waist completely dissapears when I wear shirts that size. Also because I’m just very big build, I’ll never be able to drop below a size 10/12. With todays preception of ‘beauty’ I’ll be called fat even if I weigh 135 pounds (I’m 5’9″ so for me that’s a healthy, normal weight). I’m still 200 pounds right now, but I already lost 20 pounds and determined to lose the other 65 over the course of the next year and a half. I hope my WHR decreases a little over time…
LikeLike
I cant believe that jessica alba hast got a WHR of 0.7! She looks like she has no waist at all plus 86-58-87 is def NOT J.los measurements. shes a pear and is definitely much wider than 87 on her hips. all in all in think your numbers arent right, sorry
LikeLike
@Yam Yam. “Nicki Minaj: 34-26-45; WHR of 0.58”
Yeah but a fake one….
LikeLike
Sorry but its not true that only thin women can have a WTH of 68-72… If you had a 30″ waist & 42″ hips you would have a WTH ratio of 7.1
30″ waist is not thin by anyone’s standards.
However good article, my WTH is 0.65 and was 0.7 the last time i calculated it, honestly I felt more attractive when it was 0.7 & I had more meat on my bones although I am happy to be in the same category as Kim Kardashian!
LikeLike
[…] body images are constantly changing, evolving, and in flux. Take Playboy for example, with the WHR of their centerfolds increasing from 0.62 in the 1960s to 0.7 in 2000 and beyond. It’s just interesting and the more aware of […]
LikeLike
MEN WANT MEAT,DOGS LIKE BONES. Most women in the world are below 5’7″! the average American woman is 5’4″. models arent known for beauty! they look like 7 foot tall teenage boys.Look up marilyn monroe,vida guerra,kim kardashain,shakira,Marika fruscio,mulher melao,mayra veronica,coco austin,Sarah lime,Monica santiago,Arab,latina,italian,armenian,etc women! all these women are not tall I listed either!! actually, shorter women have more estrogen which explains curves!Im sick and tired of fat big girls and skinny girls calling themselves curvy! YOU ARE NOT CURVY! CURVY IS SPECIFIC! Small waist,big butt,wide hips,thighs,breasts is curvy! not a? crackhead model or a skinny female flatter than a surfboard or a round ball with no waist! stop calling yourself curvy when ur body is nowhere near curvy ur no marilyn monroe,coco austin,vida guerra,renatta frisson,andressa soares,mayra veronica,kim kardashian! STOP IT
LikeLike
The criteria to be good print and runway models in the 90s are as follows: Attractive face, flawless hair and skin. Height 5′-7 to 5′-9″ wears size US 4 (hips 35″-36″). Height 5′-9″ to 5′-11″ wears size US 6 (hips 36″-37″). Must have classic Waist-to-Hip Ratio of 0.69 to 0.71. There was a reason Carla Bruni and Amber Valetta who were 5′-8″ wore size US 4 and Nadja Auremann and Helena Christensen who were 5′-10″ wore size US 6. It was to follow the basic guideline of classical beauty.
LikeLike
Slim women can have low whr.
Katie Leung: 34-20-33; a WHR of 0.61
LikeLike
Hi great post!All the women pictured above are beautifull and it s really interesting that the ideal WHR has gone up during the recent decades.I really wanted to comment on something though:what you say about thick women having lower WHR is not absolutely correct.For instance i am 46 kilos(and 1.66cm),so pretty slim and i have a WHR of 0.66.Why?simply because i carry the majority of the fat in my hips ad backside;-) ,whilst i have a tiny waist.This bodytype is predominant to where i was born(i m from south europe).We call this “mediterranean bodype”.Google mediterranean women and you ll see;-).Well be well and have a nice evening;-)
LikeLike
[…] WHR: waist-to-hip ratio […]
LikeLike
The waist hip ratio as a medical indicator is crap. If a woman is thin and has no curves, she will have a higher WHR and be considered at risk, but a pear shaped woman can be GROSSLY overweight and have low WHR. For example, I have a pear shape and a relatively small waist for my 5’6 frame of 31″, but my pear butt hips are 40″ giving me a .78 HWR…all good except that I am 20lbs overweight. AND the heavier I am, the SMALLER my HWR gets because I gain weight in my hips and butt, not my waist!
LikeLike
Sorry, abagond,
Most of the WHR percentages you posted for the celebrities are way, WAY off. You only have to look at the photos to tell this. Giselle Bunchen, Adriana Lima, Naomi Campbell are all RULER shaped. They have little to NO WHR. Jennifer Lopez has NEVER had a particularly small waist or really wide hips. She just has big thighs a behind that sticks out. Beyonce is another chronically photoshopped star whose publicized measurements are suspect. In unretouched pics her waist is not that small in comparison to her hips. Don’t believe celebrity press releases regarding their measurements. They all lie. Even Marilyn Monroe’s waist was never as small as they claim unless she was corseted. Most of the black so-called glamor models have had so much fat or silicone pumped into their behinds that of course their waists look small BY COMPARISON.
It’s amazing how forgiving and accepting we women can be of you men and your bald, paunchy, shaving bump ridden, knobby kneed, skinny legged (brothers are particularly challenged in the calf department) selves. But us, oh, yeah, we have to have cartoon measurements like 40-20-40 to pass muster. Puleeeez. And no, I’m not bitter. My WHR falls well within the ideal range.
LikeLike
On threads like this, suddenly every woman who posts has a tiny waist and a hourglass shape. The truth is that only 8% of women in the western world have hourglass figures, with the bust and waist the same measurement and the waist at least ten inches smaller. Kinda makes you say hmmmmmm. There are so few true hourglasses that pears have taken over as the new standard of sexiness. True hourglasses are still the most striking, balanced shape, IMO. No matter what brothas say, the projection of the buttocks has little to do with being curvy or having a low WHR Marilyn Monroe and Christina Hendricks have very little projection, yet they are almost universally considered curvy. I have seen many women (Serena Williams being a famous example) who have high WHR (thick waists) and huge butts. What really determines an hourglass shape is the view from the front and back, NOT from the side. Candace Swanpoel with a few pounds on her is a great example of a very slender, very curvy woman. Halle Berry doesn’t have a huge butt, but no one can deny that she is curvy. As for thick thighs equalling curvy? Nuhhhhuhhhhh. Who has thicker thighs than Caster Semenya?
LikeLike
Quality posts is the secret to interest the viewers to go to see the website, that’s what this web site is providing.
LikeLike
Naomi Campbell and Adriana Lima are incorrect. I have worked behind scenes with both and both remember thinking they were very athletic to be doing lingerie. Naomi had a waist/hip difference of 9 or 10 inches and Adriana had about 11 inches difference. Actually wikipedia even says naomi has W:26″ H:35.5″ and Adriana has W: 24″ H:35.5″ giving them ratios of 0.73 and 0.67
LikeLike
howdy, i’m so happy that i came across your blog I will be saving
this! – real estate florida is an interest of mine and and
your “WHR: waist to hip ratio | Abagond” article is without doubt fantastic work.
keep up the great work I’ll surely be back again real soon!
LikeLike
You’re figures are rubbish. For Liz Taylor to have a ratio of 0.58 with her 22″ waist, she’d have 40″ hips, she was very curvy but not to that extent. She was recorded as having one of 0.68! Sophia Loren’s would be 26-28/40-42 (I’m guessing as her hips are bigger than alleged 38″ which would be a UK 10) which is 0.6. Kim K isn’t as curvy as she likes to pretend and the idea that her ratio is almost the same as Raquel Welch is preposterous! 0.7 is required for an hourglass and you need a difference of 10″ at leadt between
LikeLike
You’re figures are rubbish. For Liz Taylor to have a ratio of 0.58 with her 22″ waist, she’d have 40″ hips, she was very curvy but not to that extent. She was recorded as having one of 0.68! Sophia Loren’s would be 26-28/40-42 (I’m guessing as her hips are bigger than alleged 38″ which would be a UK 10) which is 0.6. Kim K isn’t as curvy as she likes to pretend and the idea that her ratio is almost the same as Raquel Welch is preposterous! 0.7 is required for an hourglass and you need a difference of 10″ at least between your bust-waist and waist-hips. One website claimed you only need 6″ which is rubbish. 8% of women are actually hourglasses, it’s a very rare body shape. You also can not “achieve it” by working out. Some women just simply gain weight everywhere but the waist. You need 10″ for many reasons, one being that you need that much to claim an extreme silhouette. 9″ and below means you have a rectangle figure. Very very few women have hourglass figures nowadays and if you look at unphotoshopped pictures you’ll see 90% of the women here are straight up and down. Angelina Jolie is not 36″-24″-36″ like she pretends. I’d say she’s more like 36″-32″-36″ or 34″-30″-34″. Gwyneth Paltrow also claims those measurements but she’s more 34″-32″-34″ which would give her a ratio of 0.94. It’s wrong how celebrities lie about their measurements andif you have half a brain you’ll realise that very few modern actresses have the vintage hourglass figure. If celebrities were more open about their measurements then women wouldn’t be fooled into thinking a 6″ difference is an hourglass figure or that they’re any less of a woman for not having one! Kim K is a pear shape and if she were proud of her big hips and flaunted them instead of claiming to be an hourglass then all pear shaped women could follow a style icon with their body shape!
LikeLike
Just reading some of the comments and you’re all claiming hourglass like measurements, a lot of you are pears but of course it doesn’t specify. I hate when women who aren’t hourglasses pretend they are. I’m 6ft tall, 38″-32″-42″ with 0.76 and I’m not an hourglass! My friend is 5ft 7, 45″-31″-45″ and she’s an hourglass with a 0.68 ratio.
LikeLike
SaraJ
I think there is something missing in the discussion of this subject:
The Bust or breast size. I am not sure why.
Because the emphasis here is on the waist and hips, rather than the size of the bust AND hips, the size of the breasts has become an afterthought, and seems to play no role in a woman’s body shape. It does, though!
What about ratio between bust-to-waist-to hip?
Abagond’s post is bottom-heavy.
There’s nothing wrong with that — perhaps that is a reflection of what he likes.
But, because there is no mention of the bust in his original article (as far as I can see) “hourglass” and “pear-shape” have been collapsed into one and the same.
They aren’t.
LikeLike
Too bad I’m fat and my WHR is .8 exact. I probably won’t be able to change it much because I always lose the weight from my ass first 😛
These girls look good though. Wish I could be that voluptuous without a corset or surgery.
LikeLike
Well im a 34 yr old, white woman and I have a very curvy figure naturally. Im 36D-26-45. So not all white women have bodies of little boys as one of you said. Buffie the body, ki toy johnson, deelishis’ s butts aren’t even real. They are fake, it is called “plastic surgery”. Kim K’s butt is also fake.
LikeLike
Jayne Mansfield ratio is 0,49…. perfection
LikeLike
46-18-37….. this Jayne Mansfield fantastic body…..
LikeLike
just coming to brag about having a 0.65 WHR i’ll happily take on the body of a kardashian, though im shown as a spoon (36″ 25″ 36″) though my body type is apparently a spoon? wtf is a spoon?
LikeLike
Lol these are mostly BS. Giselle Bundchen has a ratio of 0.67? Yeah right. She has no curves whatsoever. I’m curvier than her and my ratio is 0.72. Raquel Welch is the curviest. Brigitte Bardot may have had a tiny waist but from the front on she wasn’t THAT curvy.
LikeLike
Well the fact is, it has nothing to do with being thin or nor, but with body shape. An hourglass figure, when getting fatter will go from 90 -60 – 90 to 100 -65-100 and so on. I personally have at the moment 76cm waist and 112cm hips. Not thin, a bit to the chubby side but a 0.67 ratio. When thinner , i have a slightly lower ratio, but its really about body shape. Hourglass when gaining weight it will all concentrate on the hips and chest and almost nothing in the waist.
Note: side note, Marilyn Monroe famous measure was 86 -60 – 86, divide 60 per 86 and her ratio is 0.69 and not 0.62 as you mentioned.
LikeLike