hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 03:46 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
How does that compare that to women in industries that are geared towards men?


what about the women who work car shows and are on the cover of auto and biker mags......they are curvy right??
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 08:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

this theory needs to account for why the fashion industry takes as its ideal of beauty anorexic women/girl who look like boys......


Well, that's simple: the fashion industry is geared towards women, not men, and the women like smaller hips and think it's more beautiful.

Cycloptichorn


The fashion industry is run by gay men who takes as its ideal of beauty the more narrow mens/boys hips.

The most profitable sector of the fashion industry is geared toward teenage who are barely physically women who are not completely physically developed.

Hence the juniors dept vs. the misses department in department stores.

Junior sizes run by the odd numbers, size 5, 7, 9 etc.
Misses run by the even numbers 6, 8, 10 etc.

If you're a woman who wants to wear the more young looking fashions and go into a juniors dept., if you wore a 10 in misses, you're a 9 in juniors.

Some women may shop in the juniors department, but for more casual clothes, t-shirts, pullovers, jeans, etc.
What they find there, and what eventually causes women to veer away from that department, is that the clothes are more trendy, meant to be bought often and the styles quickly change, bringing in more money to the fashion industry.

The misses department carries trendy clothes as well, but is more geared to women who have figured out what styles they look good/feel comfortable in, and and going for higher quality, longer wear.



There's nothing wrong with liking women with small hips.
Nothing wrong with liking medium and big hips.

0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 08:45 pm
Seems like most of the discussion here is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the WHR. It's not about big hips. It's not about thin vs curvy.

Tom Wolfe's line being bandied about describing a 14-year old boy's body with breasts being the modern preference doesn't really have much to do with this ratio. For the most part, they are still pushing models with the WHR, they are just thin.

Again, WHR is not about big hips and it's not about curvy women or weight. A rail thin woman can have the "ideal" WHR, as can an overweight woman.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 09:28 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Seems like most of the discussion here is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the WHR. It's not about big hips. It's not about thin vs curvy.

Tom Wolfe's line being bandied about describing a 14-year old boy's body with breasts being the modern preference doesn't really have much to do with this ratio. For the most part, they are still pushing models with the WHR, they are just thin.

Again, WHR is not about big hips and it's not about curvy women or weight. A rail thin woman can have the "ideal" WHR, as can an overweight woman.


full of yourself much?? The OP was about "child-bearing hips", which I tke to mean wide. To the extent that anorexics don't have wide hips because there is no flesh on them weight is relevant. YOU are the one who is insisting that this thread is about the WHR, no one else is.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 10:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The OP was about "child-bearing hips", which I tke to mean wide.


And what I am telling you is the same I told the OP, you take it wrong.

The studies have been about WHR which is bastardized into a belief that attraction to "child-bearing hips" are an evolved trait in media and among laypersons. So it gets conflated with the thin vs. curvy social debate, when the science behind it is really not about that.

Quote:
To the extent that anorexics don't have wide hips because there is no flesh on them weight is relevant.


Wide hips can be present in very thin people. The underlying science isn't about how wide the hips are, but the ratio of them to the waist. A thin person can have the same WHR as a very fat person.

The basis of the theory (the science, not the crap you might read in magazines) is just not about "wide hips".

Quote:
YOU are the one who is insisting that this thread is about the WHR, no one else is.


Exactly, because most of the people here don't understand the concept beyond a superficial "child bearing hips" level. I haven't been arguing what the thread purports to be about, I'm arguing against the junk-science being bandied about in it.

Even if the thread is about "child-bearing hips" my point remains, this is a bastardization of the science behind it, which is WHR, and has more to do with waist than hips.
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 05:16 am
@Robert Gentel,
This is true - in general- women who are pear-shaped (who carry their weight in their hips and thighs)- are less prone to various health issues (high blood pressure and heart disease) than women who are apple-shaped (carrying their weight in their bellies).

Thus, the perception of general health can be immediately and maybe even subconsciously or unconsciously derived from the general shape of a woman's body.

The wide hips or childbearing hips description is really indicative of the width of a woman's pelvis - which DOES impact how she is able to carry and deliver a child.

But a heavy woman with wide, fleshy hips can also have a narrow pelvis- just as a thin woman who looks to be smaller, can have a wide pelvis. It's more about bone structure than padding and flesh- that's why the waist to hip measurement is a more accurate (but not foolproof) indication.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 05:59 am
I don't know that men are necessarily attracted to women with child-bearing hips or what's perceived to be child-bearing hips. I think what men like is due to several factors - their generation, their locale, their culture, for example. Men who like bubble butts aren't likely to reside in China where you're very unlikely to find one. Men of my generation grew up with more curvaceous women and tend to like those while the younger generations grew up with slimmer-figured ladies. I realize this is a generalization, but I am speaking generally.

And as for someone's contention that the content of a man's wallet attracts women, well, that might be true for some, but personally I am attracted to smart and funny men first and foremost. That's not to say I'm willing to financially support a man because I'm not, but it's not because of the money factor; it's more related to the type of person they are. And I could care less about whether they are good-looking or have a full head of hair - if they intrigue me due to their smarts and their humour, I'm interested. Period.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2009 03:50 pm
@rydinearth,
Quote:
I happen to find thin, small breasted women with small asses the most attractive.

Very Happy
Good-oh.
I have slim hips. Popping kids out of them is gonna be hell.
I'm fed up of the whole, 'putting weight on make you curvy- go for it girls' emphasis. Some people are naturally thin, and if I put weight on i wouldn't get curvy I'd just get a massive tummy.

0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2009 08:21 pm
I think there is confusion between wide pelvis/hip bones and chubby asses/thunder thighs. A woman can have wide bone structure and have healthy weight. That is what the waist hip ratio is concerned with.
aubrey3421
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:46 pm
@rydinearth...so because you are apparently "advanced enough" to think that women who have no fat on them are the cream of the crop, that makes men who don't find it particularly attractive "immature" sexually?!? sorry for the confusion, but I would beg to differ that if nothing else the attraction to skinny girls is more your conforming to society and what they say is beautiful than anything else. You are most definately NOT an anomoly. Trust me.
0 Replies
 
aubrey3421
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:54 pm
@ossobuco,
chubby asses/thunder thighs?!?! nice. I can honestly say that even at 5'9 and 130 lbs I have not only wide hips but a "chubby ass" and "thunder thighs" I'm also at the very bottom of my BMI. Neither of those things is indicative of having a healthy weight. It is more about weight distribution. I think many women would resent the words you use in describing our asses.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 07:04 pm
@aubrey3421,
A year later I forget the context of my sentence there, in my mind or relative to other posts, and will have to go back and think about it.

On a very quick thread review, I'd be interested re wide hips re childbirth data in itself, regardless of waist measurement, in terms of successful childbirth or ease of childbirth.

I'm a woman, by the way.

I could believe data shows that interviewed men like certain numbers in waist hip ratio in some surveys. Women probably interview as preferring a certain belly volume to abdomen volume ratio for their sperm depositors.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 07:21 pm
@ossobuco,
Ok, I just reread the start of this fast - this discussion has been both about wide hips/pelvis and childbearing, and attractiveness to men, which involves whr.
As was said somewhere along the line, chubbiness or skinnyness is irrelevant - in this particular discussion, but not re health - to birthing ease. My comment on asses and thighs was about that confusion.
0 Replies
 
pauldiggy160
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:03 pm
Yes they' re attractive. Just like women are attracted to tall guys with broad shoulders and big dicks, men are attracted to women with a waist to hip ratio of .7, which is usually only seen in younger women. BUT the hips have to be wide due to the bone structure of the woman, NOT because they have a fat ass.
lilmisscari1982
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 10:55 am
@pauldiggy160,
What a woman looks like has absolutely no meaning when it comes to her ability to push out a baby with ease. And I say this as a woman who in fact does have the "child-bearing hips"....guess what it was my first obgyn that told me that lol. Incidentally I'm 5 ft tall and yes I'm pear shaped. But so is my sister and my sister's pelvis wouldn't allow a 6 lb baby thru and she had to have a c-section. Me...I had a 9 and an 8# baby naturally and I'm pregnant with what I believe will be my biggest baby. By the way I'm not diabetic lol I get asked that all the time since my babies are large. No I'm not the fashion model type don't want to be. Nice medium sized breasts and admittedly wide hips and a big ass...not that's not from eating fried food either I don't touch fried food. I had a 22 in waist in high school but was in size 12 pants. Genetics what can I say? But getting back to the topic, what matters more than anything when it comes to giving birth is how wide the pelvis bone structure itself is and how willing to widen for the baby's birth it is. In my case I just happen to be lucky and "fit" the stereotype. But not everyone does.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Child Bearing Hips
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/19/2019 at 04:58:12