Waist to Hip Ratio 5'4 132lbs

Let's put this in perspective, my dear:

Marilyn Monroe, considered one of the most beautiful women who ever lived, had measurements of 36-23-37. That' s awful darn close to yours!

If that profile pic is really you, then you are gorgeous. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you feel like you need to lose more weight in order to be as healthy as you want, that's cool, you're the best judge of that. But I certainly wouldn't worry about those proportions! Va-va-voom!

Your hips are meant to be wider than your waist. I think 10 inches is about the average difference. Have a look at this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/tools/hip_to_waist/hip_to_waist.shtml

I'm jealous of your trim waist!

My stats are:
height - 5'5"
weight - 123
waist - 28.5"
hips - 36"

The Ideal Waist to Hip Ratio as an indicator of physical attractiveness is fascinating to me. Its roots are in evolutionary theory and there is lots of scientific research data that support the theory. The Ideal WHR for female attractiveness is .8. 40"hips x .8 = 32" waist. Modern man's earliest ancestors passed onto them an extinct that psychologists believe is in use today. Across any culture, when a male is looking to extend his gene pool, he targets a breeding mate with this ideal or close- to-ideal WHR in order to increase his odds of a successful reproductive outcome. Medical science has strong evidence to support that this is a good strategy. Even today, WHR is considered a fairly accurate bodily indicator of a woman's reproductive status & general heath. That is, is she pre-pubertal, post-pubertal, menopausal, possibly infertile, pregnant, para 1, para 2, para 3, physically able to nurse, mentally able to care for offspring) Women with Waist to hip ratios outside the range of say ~.7 to .9 have increased risks for infertility, complications in childbirth, general as well as psychological health issues. So men like curves not straight boy bodies.

lmkram1 wrote: »

The Ideal Waist to Hip Ratio as an indicator of physical attractiveness is fascinating to me. Its roots are in evolutionary theory and there is lots of scientific research data that support the theory. The Ideal WHR for female attractiveness is .8. 40"hips x .8 = 32" waist. Modern man's earliest ancestors passed onto them an extinct that psychologists believe is in use today. Across any culture, when a male is looking to extend his gene pool, he targets a breeding mate with this ideal or close- to-ideal WHR in order to increase his odds of a successful reproductive outcome. Medical science has strong evidence to support that this is a good strategy. Even today, WHR is considered a fairly accurate bodily indicator of a woman's reproductive status & general heath. That is, is she pre-pubertal, post-pubertal, menopausal, possibly infertile, pregnant, para 1, para 2, para 3, physically able to nurse, mentally able to care for offspring) Women with Waist to hip ratios outside the range of say ~.7 to .9 have increased risks for infertility, complications in childbirth, general as well as psychological health issues. So men like curves not straight boy bodies.

This is from 2011 but it was bumped. To create a sense of balance this is what I found about men:

Research shows ideal shoulder-waist ratio is 1.6 for men.

Shoulder length = longest points between your shoulders

Waist length = shortest points near the area around your belly button. Waist length is not your hip length.

https://www.pivotimage.com/blog/2017/1/17/the-perfect-body-according-to-science?format=amp

* I don’t agree or disagree with either measurement*.

For every time women receive an attractiveness analysis of our bodies it should also apply to men.

I do find the original topic interesting though.

Personal:
Weight: 120-125 lbs
Bust: 34 inches
Waist: 24.5 inches
Hips: 34 inches

sollyn23l2 wrote: »

Can we not bring this back? I really don't think it's healthy. At all. To compare waist sizes like this. The only people who comment are people with almost ideal ratios... because... well, we all know why. Personally, I got down to 80 pounds trying to get a 25 inch waist. And I never did. Even at 80 pounds. In my opinion, this should really go away. Nobody else needs to know how tiny or big someone else's waist is.

Endorsed. My waist will never be small either, and - to be crystal clear - I'm fine with that. My body proportions include a relatively small space between the lowest edge of my rib cage and the upper edge of my pelvic bones. There's gonna be no way in that short a vertical distance to horizontally pull in the amount of body tissue there. That's fine.

I'd like to see everyone, men and women alike, celebrate and even optimize the body they actually have, not go pining sadly for someone else's body. We get just one. Use it to have a good life. Hating it won't help.

When I was young 5'10", 140-160, 35-23-39
Now 5'8", 175ish, 39-36-41.
Accept both completely and totally. I always had a lot of estrogen when I was younger, after menopause and hysterectomy, pretty much zero. Sure made a lot of difference in my figure. I accept that it's another stage in my life, nothing more.

ddsb1111 wrote: »

You know what, that’s really valid. The thread was bumped and there’s an article critiquing women’s bodies and not men’s. I just don’t get either one. Knee jerk reaction to add the men’s. To stick with the OP, added my measurements because I actually know them for once. That’s been my main focus for the past 8 months more than the scale. The last thing I want to do is make anyone feel bad.

No worries, I wasn't trying to call you out specifically, your posts are always well considered and I know that wasn't your intention at all. It's more for people in general who, like me, tend to hyperfixate on particular aspects of our bodies.