For years, the classic “hour-glass” figure was a very popular body shape (recently replaced on the runway by the stick figure). But one Anthropologist says, the hour-glass figure may no longer be “optimal.”
While pop culture seems to worship the hourglass figure for females, with a tiny waist, big boobs and curvy hips à la Marilyn Monroe, this may not be optimal, says Elizabeth Cashdan of the University of Utah.
That’s because the hormones that make women physically stronger, more competitive and better able to deal with stress also tend to redistribute fat from the hips to the waist.
Interesting. The article continues…
However, women around the world tend to have larger waist-to-hip ratios (more cylindrical than hourglass-shaped) than is considered optimal by these medical and social standards.
Specifically, Cashdan compiled data from 33 non-Western populations and four European populations, finding the average waist-to-hip ratio for women was above 0.8. So if 0.7 is the magic number both in terms of health and male mate choice, Cashdan wondered why most women exhibit a significantly higher ratio.
Although it’s good to hear that the “hour glass figure” as the ideal body type in Western society might be soon forgotten, the problem in general is the idea that there is a certain type of body that is more ideal than another and that one can determine fertility levels and productivity by the shape of a woman’s hips. Why is it so important for us as a society to continue to put women’s bodies under such scrutiny?
As far as pop culture, the hourglass figure was replaced with the thin and rectangular one years ago, I thought.
I thought the comparisons of what men prefer in more equal societies vs less equal ones was quite interesting. And big applause for this quote: “And from a woman’s perspective, men’s preferences are not the only thing that matters,” But I agree with you that it’s frustrating that there needs to be an ideal body type at all. We don’t see this focus on men’s body shapes! Why can’t we just accept that different women comes in different shapes and the shape that is natural for a woman is what’s optimal for her.
I must admit that I rolled my eyes a little when I read that article, and not just because I have an hourglass shape. I have never liked, and will never like, the idea that there is a certain body type that’s “ideal” or “perfect” and better than all other body types.
my woman has an hour glass figure! Yeeeeaaaah! And I like it!
agreed. i’m so sick of it. i have an hourglass figure which shrinks and expands with the different phases of my life. i don’t want to be scrutinized at all! like i said, i am so sick of it. thank you.
Damn, and just when I discovered that my waist-to-hip ratio was one of the ONLY things the medical establishment thinks is just fine with me!
Never mind. I’m pear-shaped anyway, not hourglass.
Well said, Becky. It doesn’t matter what’s in fashion, or what has the best correlation with health – I’m still going to be an hourglass and my cousin is still going to be a stick
Also, the waist-to-hip thing isn’t exactly clear cut. When I lost a lot of weight in the spring, my waist-to-hip ration got higher. My fat is stored on my hips, so if I lose it, my hips get smaller but my waist doesn’t and the ratio goes up.
Froth, if your hips got smaller, and your stomach bigger, then you’re not an hourglass, I’m an hourglass and when I lose weight, I lose it from my waist first so it gets smaller, then I lose a little from my hips, and butt, but not as much as my waist, so my hips and butt are always bigger in comparison to my waist, you sound like you’re probably an apple, or a ruler…they carry most their weight in the upper body while being more narrow in the hips, bottom line, being an hourglass has nothing to do with your weight.
Whether we like it or not, facts exist. Scientific claims are constantly approved and disapproved. While we may not be sure whether hour glass or cylindrical figures are optimal for health, we can be sure that some body type is definitely more favorable from an evolutionary perspective.
But what matters here is to tell ourselves: We are not primates anymore to operate on evolutionary biases. We have evolved..we have learnt to think, create, discover, appreciate art… We don’t need to depend on nature’s instincts to judge a person’s worth merely on fertility or health. We have to understand that there is an individual within each body with emotions and thoughts that you will not learn to appreciate unless you look beyond the mere body shape.
So women, lets tell ourselves… ” My body shape does NOT define the whole person I am and lucky is the one who discovers the real me crossing external prejudices!”
Sinduja: “We are not primates anymore to operate on evolutionary biases. We have evolved..we have learnt to think, create, discover, appreciate art… We don’t need to depend on nature’s instincts to judge a person’s worth merely on fertility or health. We have to understand that there is an individual within each body with emotions and thoughts that you will not learn to appreciate unless you look beyond the mere body shape.”
You said what I was trying to grasp a way to say, beautifully. Thank you!
“evolutionary perspective”? who cares…
Sinduja, I agree with the rest of your comment but as for this:
we can be sure that some body type is definitely more favorable from an evolutionary perspective.
I think the whole point of this story is we really can’t. A low WHR (hourglass or pear body type) is correlated with some desirable traits, a higher WHR (rectangle or apple body type) is correlated with others. Neither is the optimal or most favourable, it depends on what you’re looking for. (From an evolutionary perspective I mean).
Thanks for that I love your site and I’ve got a weird half athletic half hourglass figure but I’m happy the way I am
~ whew! ~ this one is sort of confusing. First of all, I thought a ‘high ratio’ would be a high number of difference between hips and waist, being biologically ‘more desirable’…a ‘low ratio’ would be a lower number of difference between waist and hips…do I have that backwards?
Anyway…biology! *haha!* I believe we, as homo sapiens, still respond on unconscious (or superconscious) levels to things like a person’s facial structure and shape, height, weight, hair color, and other visual cues that are meant to signal whether or not a potential mate is a good choice.
An “hourglass” figure means that a woman has hips – hip BONES, ladies, your PELVIS – wide enough to bear a child, and breasts, signaling that she has an appropriate amount of fat (again to produce a healthy child) and also that she is of mature, mating age.
An adolescent girl who isn’t mature usually has a narrower hip structure (bones) that hasnt widened or finished growing. She hasn’t yet developed breasts and probably hasn’t menstruated yet.
So, no hips+no breasts= too young to breed.
Hips+breasts=let’s go get it on! Ready to breed!(hourglass)
But that’s biology and biochemistry. Fashion cares not for them. *ha!*
ive got a hour-glass figure , but ive never wanted one ive just always had one
and i dont know if its a good thing because ive had it pretty much all my life
I agree with the first comment, women are anorexic trying to be the “preferred shape”
In my thinking I think that men can be superficial pigs to look at one body shape and say it’s ideal!
I mean us women should be deciding what’s “ideal” and not going along with men that don’t really know how to control their own hormones. Nuff said maybe that was too harsh.
Though I must say I think that there’s no such thing as ideal of perfect and I’m sick of people trying to invent some shape like that. We shouldn’t be scrutinized like that and maybe we should have some sort of boycotting of men. lolz but I’m serious…