SincereOnlineGuy Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 How does one even do the math on that? There's no way that men can intuitively take measurements on a woman's waist and hips, do the math in his head, and come up with a ratio to determine fertility and attractiveness. Men, do you really come up with numbers? What about the men who really are not mathematically inclined? Can men tell how many inches a woman's hips are just by looking? This seems really far-fetched... Yup, can't even get near to understanding her own appeal... (such an endearing-to-a-point trait) *** it would be completely adored (the trait of NOT yet having figured out the full of your desirability) by those men who casually pass near to your life each day... BUT, in mere black-and-white print, to those so far removed from your circles, it pushes the line of mildly challenging (with relatively minimal potential reward). PS - which brings me to the POINT I forgot to add on my last post: It should be observed, mathematically, by all women that a vast majority of women could reach that magical-seeming ratio (of " .70" ) by gaining weight in the hips. NOT that they should..., but the point is that this ratio is FAR more accessible to the random lot of genetics than is some hard-line weight number. Think of the difference between... some crazy statistic that might say: men were polled, and the ideal age of a woman is 23.724 years old vs the poll that actually did happen in the early 1990's, where men were polled, and the ideal age for a romantic partner is "half his own age plus 7 years". Well everybody simply cannot BE 23.724 years old... NOR should anyone give up on life completely after passing 23.724 years old (or when she can't get her waist to 26 inches) This waist-to-hip ratio of .70 remains enough of a variable so that the vast majority CAN know that as realistic and/or attainable. Link to post Share on other sites
SincereOnlineGuy Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 That's what I was trying to say! That I doubt men are comparing numbers between women's hips, but that they're simply noticing hips. But then people posted saying that yes, they actually DO notice a specific ratio. That it's more than "yep. she has hips." But apparently there are specific ratios that men will like more than others, and they can actually tell! Which astounds me... I sure wouldn't ever notice such a thing! OK, admittedly, (as I now said in an earlier post) men are not comparing updated actual numbers between women... for it is all relative by (the time there are two or more women to compare). But just as airport workers might instinctively have a well-defined sense for what will fit in the overhead baggage compartment (or under a seat) {even though the average traveler has to learn again with each piece of luggage - sometimes the hard way}... the male eye, in vast numbers, tends to prefer a waist-to-hip ratio that lands fairly near to that magic-seeming " .70" number. And, well, lets just SAY... that a 20-something whose waist could expand into the future, and still reach that .70 spot, might have much less in the way of self-critiques to be concerned with in the future, than does someone who could only arrive there if their hips grew considerably OR if they lost a large amount of weight from their waist. HOW-ever!!!... if you take the standard early 20's woman of, eh, I dunno, ".80" and then found her to go through a pregnancy...it is entirely likely that she might gain (permanent) weight with each kid AND at the same time land nearer TO the ".70" ideal (given that hips are perhaps more likely to expand considerably to facilitate delivery, than is the waist ... with neither potentially returning all the way back to the old norm) Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It should be observed, mathematically, by all women that a vast majority of women could reach that magical-seeming ratio (of " .70" ) by gaining weight in the hips. NOT that they should..., but the point is that this ratio is FAR more accessible to the random lot of genetics than is some hard-line weight number. Except that women can't pick where we gain weight (hips vs. waistline). That part is really up to genetics. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
elaine567 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 HOW-ever!!!... if you take the standard early 20's woman of, eh, I dunno, ".80" and then found her to go through a pregnancy...it is entirely likely that she might gain (permanent) weight with each kid AND at the same time land nearer TO the ".70" ideal (given that hips are perhaps more likely to expand considerably to facilitate delivery, than is the waist ... with neither potentially returning all the way back to the old norm) What rubbish is this? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Most older men know that most younger women are not interested but if you cast your net wide enough you are bound to catch some fish. If only out of 10 respond well that is still one and if you ask out 20 it is two. Not saying I approach dating that way but that is really how a lot of them approach it. Link to post Share on other sites
SincereOnlineGuy Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Except that women can't pick where we gain weight (hips vs. waistline). That part is really up to genetics. So then are you trying to suggest that it would be easier for you to slim down to some pinpointed weight number deemed "ideal(/unrealistic)" than it would be for you to attain a waist-to-hip ratio of .70 from wherEVER you are on the weight scale? Unless you are saying that, then you didn't pay enough attention to what I wrote. And if you are saying that, then you are most likely incorrect. Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 So then are you trying to suggest that it would be easier for you to slim down to some pinpointed weight number deemed "ideal(/unrealistic)" than it would be for you to attain a waist-to-hip ratio of .70 from wherEVER you are on the weight scale? Unless you are saying that, then you didn't pay enough attention to what I wrote. And if you are saying that, then you are most likely incorrect. Are you familiar with women's body shapes? Some women gain weight in the abdomen and breasts first, and don't get rounded hips no matter what their weight. Others are "column shaped", and look straight up and down no matter if they are thin or fat, with little waist definition. Hourglass and pear shaped women are lucky enough to keep that ratio whether they gain or lose weight, within reason. But that really is the luck of genetics. 7 Link to post Share on other sites
TexasMan68 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Because many do for various reasons: money, security, more experience in bed, very assertive and secure with ourselves, we're happy with or without you around. And we relate to your parents because were close to their age . 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Phoe Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm just gonna assume that men won't necessarily tell the difference between .6, .65, .7, .75, etc... such close ratios aren't necessarily noticeable. I'll just assume that they notice the outward curve. But are hip ratio and age necessarily correlated? Does the ratio typically change as one ages? Surely, assuming weight gain or loss, the ratio will change, but there's no guarantee of how one's weight may or may not fluctuate through aging. So by logic, I wouldn't necessarily associate hip ratio with youth. Link to post Share on other sites
Anela Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Because many do for various reasons: money, security, more experience in bed, very assertive and secure with ourselves, we're happy with or without you around. And we relate to your parents because were close to their age . I haven't known many parents who would like that. My parents didn't (sister married an older man). 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Weezy1973 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm just gonna assume that men won't necessarily tell the difference between .6, .65, .7, .75, etc... such close ratios aren't necessarily noticeable. I'll just assume that they notice the outward curve. But are hip ratio and age necessarily correlated? Does the ratio typically change as one ages? Surely, assuming weight gain or loss, the ratio will change, but there's no guarantee of how one's weight may or may not fluctuate through aging. So by logic, I wouldn't necessarily associate hip ratio with youth. The hip to waist ratio is purely a preference for reproductive viability - which makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Women with a small waist in relation to their hips happen to be reproductively viable for the most part. In other words, men tend not to be attracted to women that are pre-pubescent, post-menopausal, and pregnant. Those women are not not reproductively viable and don't have a "curve" from their waist to their hips. Link to post Share on other sites
stillafool Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 What's sad is by the time these young women reach their sexual peak the old man will be dead. Link to post Share on other sites
SincereOnlineGuy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Are you familiar with women's body shapes? Some women gain weight in the abdomen and breasts first, and don't get rounded hips no matter what their weight. Others are "column shaped", and look straight up and down no matter if they are thin or fat, with little waist definition. Hourglass and pear shaped women are lucky enough to keep that ratio whether they gain or lose weight, within reason. But that really is the luck of genetics. SO again, AS I said the first time: """this ratio is FAR more accessible to the random lot of genetics than is some hard-line weight number.""" That was the point. We are not talking about "some women" here. It is potentially true that "some women" really can (lol - I was going to say some crude old sexual ideal having to do with a golf ball, but I thought better of it)... It is indisputable that a waist-to-hip ratio of .70 is much more realistically attainable to "most women" than is a body weight that is, say, 10 pounds below ideal for their height and frame. Link to post Share on other sites
SincereOnlineGuy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm just gonna assume that men won't necessarily tell the difference between .6, .65, .7, .75, etc... such close ratios aren't necessarily noticeable. I'll just assume that they notice the outward curve. But are hip ratio and age necessarily correlated? Does the ratio typically change as one ages? Surely, assuming weight gain or loss, the ratio will change, but there's no guarantee of how one's weight may or may not fluctuate through aging. So by logic, I wouldn't necessarily associate hip ratio with youth. Well, for example, one way that waist-to-hip ratio and age are correlated, is surrounding the point of menopause. Where pre-menopausal women tend to be most likely to have that significant waist-to-hip ratio, post-menopausal women very often evolve back toward the waist-to-hip ratio of 1.00 which is so common in Middle School. (and you would be woefully wrong to think that men couldn't tell the difference between a W-T-H ratio of .6 and a W-T-H ratio of .7 ) I would suspect that even you would tell (if only society would inspire you to bother to view female bodies in such a way) (because you enjoy so doing - and not merely as a social study that you may, or may not remember to undertake) Link to post Share on other sites
SincereOnlineGuy Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 women that are pre-pubescent, post-menopausal, and pregnant. Now there's an impossible combination ! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Because many do for various reasons: money, security, more experience in bed, very assertive and secure with ourselves, we're happy with or without you around. And we relate to your parents because were close to their age . Ummm... I'm pretty sure the bolded is NOT usually considered a plus point. Not to the daughter and certainly not to the parents. Most fathers REALLY wouldn't be too thrilled to have their daughter date someone the same age as them... I think mine would probably beat the guy up. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
PinkInTheLimo Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Basically, like it or not, sorry Gloria Steinem....feminity is what attracts most men. Yeah but what is feminity? Noone has the last say on what feminity is just like noone has the last say on what masculinity is. Some might think Bill Gates is the summum of masculinity, others George Clooney. Link to post Share on other sites
elaine567 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm just gonna assume that men won't necessarily tell the difference between .6, .65, .7, .75, etc... such close ratios aren't necessarily noticeable. I'll just assume that they notice the outward curve. But are hip ratio and age necessarily correlated? Does the ratio typically change as one ages? Surely, assuming weight gain or loss, the ratio will change, but there's no guarantee of how one's weight may or may not fluctuate through aging. So by logic, I wouldn't necessarily associate hip ratio with youth. Women come in a lot of different body shapes and ageing alters body shape as the fat gets deposited in different places. In a recent study of 18000 women. only ~40% of women were hourglass shaped. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/02/article-2440176-186F9D1400000578-349_964x589.jpg 2 Link to post Share on other sites
PinkInTheLimo Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 If you study anthropology, apparently this has to do with perceived fertility. And just look at Marylin Monroe. She's still an icon, and most people don't even remember what "Twiggy" looked like Marilyn Monroe might have been the wet dream of many men but she had a miserable life and died at only 36. Twiggy has been married for more than 20 years to her second husband (her first husband died at only 52) and seems to lead a healthy and happy life. Never mind she used to be skinny. In any case, when you look at her now, she is a pretty lady in her sixties. Not sure la Monroe would have looked that good at 65. So the perfect hourglass figure might get a woman a lot of attention (probably a lot of it unwanted) it sure does not make her happy. Link to post Share on other sites
PinkInTheLimo Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Oh, here we go again... older men are automatically considered 'quality'... why exactly? Because they are older? yes, yes, that is the cr*p women are fed starting at a fairly young age. I totally agree. Age has nothing to do with being a quality person. If someone is an idiot and a jerk at 30, chances are good that he will be an idiot and a jerk at 55. Maybe only better at disguising it and fooling a younger woman. Have a look at this: 10 things no one tells you about dating men in their 50s | Metro News I recently met 2 guys in their fifties via a dating site. I thought they both came across as discouraged and lacking lust for life. I still have dreams and plans for the rest of my life and I would hope to get together with a guy who has a positive outlook on life. But it's these guys in their fifties who complain about women of their age not being dynamic enough for them. Pffff. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
loveweary11 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Regarding this whole waist to hips/butt thing... Am I really all alone to think that what matters is not only this ratio, but the numbers themselves? I'm sure I like the same ratio, but if the ratio doesn't include a tiny waist and a normal or smaller size butt, I'm out. Link to post Share on other sites
StanMusial Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Some might think Bill Gates is the summum of masculinity. I get a kick out of these threads. Anyway OP I don't know where you're coming from, maybe you work in an old folks' home or something. I guess enjoy it while you can? In 15 or 20 years it will REALLY piss you off. Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Anyway OP I don't know where you're coming from, maybe you work in an old folks' home or something. I guess enjoy it while you can? In 15 or 20 years it will REALLY piss you off. I don't miss being a young woman getting hit on by old guys a bit! 2 Link to post Share on other sites
autumnnight Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Marilyn Monroe might have been the wet dream of many men but she had a miserable life and died at only 36. Twiggy has been married for more than 20 years to her second husband (her first husband died at only 52) and seems to lead a healthy and happy life. Never mind she used to be skinny. In any case, when you look at her now, she is a pretty lady in her sixties. Not sure la Monroe would have looked that good at 65. So the perfect hourglass figure might get a woman a lot of attention (probably a lot of it unwanted) it sure does not make her happy. Thanks for the history lesson. My point was that at the time the attention was being gotten, MM had the more traditionally feminine figure. If you're trying to make some correlation between having an hourglass figure and dying a sad lonely death before midlife, I'm not certain that's 100% scientific. And yeah, as a woman who looks like a woman, I wanted to give a shout out to all those other women with boobs and a butt that it's a GOOD thing NOT to look like Sheldon Cooper with a hoo-ha. lol 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Anela Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't miss being a young woman getting hit on by old guys a bit! Neither do I! 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts