36 24 36

Emerald1

Emerald1

New member
I apologize if this topic has been brought up before. But refreshers are always nice anyway ^_^

36 24 36?

I was reading an article today about these numbers and how it is considered the "ideal" measurements for a woman's body. 36 24 36 (chest, waist, and hips respectively).
I skipped the parts about it being some instinct in men to want a woman who is 36 24 36 because she is considered the best when it comes to being able to conceive.... yea.. I'm sure that's what a guy is thinking when he sees her walk by. Is this what guy's think as he stares? ..."Hmmm, perhaps this female of my species will provide an optimal haven for supporting my potential offspring."

The doctor that wrote the article also brought out that this thinking became more popular when women used corsets. Then it's popularity raised even more with the increased trend of girls showing their midriffs.

But I want to hear this from real people. People like you who can maybe explain this "ideal measurement" from your point of view. Do you think this is the ideal? Doesn't it matter what her height and weight is? Not everyone's frame will allow them to even be this 36 24 36.

I'm still losing weight and have a while to go before I reach my goal. I'm 200 pounds right now at 5'3" and am 43 35 46. I carry my weight well and I don't have a single "roll", "fold" or anything like that at all. But when I read/see/hear things like this it's bit confusing for me. I don't know whether I'm encouraged or discouraged. :confused:

With that said, what do you all think about this ideal measurement for women?
 
Last edited:
Nope. There is no 'ideal' measurement. And if there was, it would certainly not be that one.

For me, the 'ideal' measurement would be what is healthy (when it comes to weight/body fat percentage etc.), and more importantly, what the person in question feels good in.

Apparently the doctor who wrote this is stuck somewhere in the middle ages. And even with his warped theory, he is actually wrong. In most cultures, the woman able to 'conceive' the best would be more curvy, with wide hips, larger breasts and a 'spacy' midsection. Nowhere near 24.

In a nutshell, it's bollocks. Don't let stupid things like that discourage you!!!
 
Thanks for your input San. I agree with you. I'm going to be a Scientist (of biology) myself but I am not in any way agreeing with him. lol :icon_bs:

I wonder what others think. Maybe some people really feel that his theory is true.
 
I wouldnt kick that out of bed but as others have said, its really about the frame and other factors.

I'm not too picky. Those measurements represent the ideal "Playboy Body" but I like other types as well.
 
I've heard that instinctively there's an attention to hip/waist ratios - large 'child bearing' hips means the woman is more likely to survive child birth. The exact 36/24/36 probably doesn't matter, but the waist being .7 or less times the hips does. Wikiepedia may not be the most reliable source, but it can give you a general idea. Waist-hip ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Physical attractiveness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waist-Hip ratio does have some correlation to both fertility and general health (risk of heart disease & diabetes) so it's possible there's some instinctive reaction. I know I feel better about myself when I feel like my waist is small compared to my hips rather than 'built like a brick'.

On the other hand, it apparently varies across cultures so it might not be purely instinct, and certainly you don't have to have those ratios to be attractive. I also find people I know as good people to be more appealing, regardless of measurements. :p
 
@Virtus- Wow! The link you provided shows so many celebrities with basically the "ideal" measurements (not verified of course). I wonder if that's a clue that maybe it could actually be more appealing. At least maybe it is for the majority in the US? I don't know if I agree with the doctors article but it might have some truth to it. Great link and thanks for commenting.

@Jeanette401- Well right now my ratio is .76 But I'm still losing weight fast. I've just lost another 2 pounds since August 1st and it's only the 4th. I agree with you. I know a lot of people who are of a larger size than 36 24 36 and look really nice. Thanks for the links. It's actually talking about the same doctor (Dr. Singh) that I was reading the article from. I'm reading over them now. What I'm finding is very interesting indeed.

This is what I found most interesting from your links. "While the study is still being reviewed, there is a moderate correlation between WHR and intelligence of offspring. Using data from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, William Lassek at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and Steven Gaulin of the University of California, Santa Barbara, found a child's performance in cognition tests was linked to their mother's waist-hip ratio, a proxy for how much fat she stores on her hips.

Children whose mothers had wide hips and a low waist-hip ratio scored highest, leading Lassek and Gaulin to suggest that fetuses benefit from hip fat that contains polyunsaturated fatty acids critical for the development of the fetus's brain" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio)

It's nice to find out what real people think about it.
 
Last edited:
Emerald said:
@Virtus- Wow! The link you provided shows so many celebrities with basically the "ideal" measurements (not varified of course). I wonder if that's a clue that maybe it could actually be more appealing. At least maybe it is for the majority in the US? I don't know if I agree with the doctors article but it might have some truth to it. Great link and thanks for commenting.
Click to expand...

I think it probably is the most appealing. Or at least appealing to the largest amount of men.

I wouldnt read too much into it tho. Its no secret that most men prefer women who have a low body fat percentage and 34+ chest.

I think what people forget is just how similar female bodies are and how a couple inches here or there can totally change the overall physical appearance.

A couple inches height or bust can make a big difference.

Actually I am sure if you looked at most attractive male bodies the results would be pretty much the same.

Sure there are exceptions but I am sure that most of the "hot" male celebrities have more than a couple inches deviation from their waste, chest, and biceps.
 
The stuff I read on this subject is that men prefer an ideal waist to hip ratio of about 0.7, not so much the absolute size. Marilyn Monroe had that ratio at a higher weight than current sex symbols who are smaller but still have a similar ratio.


Also the preference for this could be subconscious, men evolved to prefer fertile women without consciously thinking about it.

Just like we prefer tall and muscular men without consciously thinking that they have better genes.
 
There have been some interesting tests on heterogeneity (having your parents genes be different from each other) and attractiveness, symmetry, intelligence etc. There's actually been a study that shows that women prefer the scent of men with a different set of one type genes from theirs - they did a T-Shirt sniffing study. For real :D



Pretty interesting stuff happening at the instinctive level.
 
You all brought out so much good information.

I wonder about the men who prefer larger women. I wonder if her ratio would still be .7

Is there anyone here striving to be 36 24 36 or have a ratio of .7?
 
My bf and I were watching the hooter's beauty pageant thing on late night tv the other day, and the only thing the girls he thought were ugly had in common were they were all built like boys. No hips at all.
I'm blessed (or cursed) to be tall -and- hour glass. So i've got legs for days and carry my weight in my hips and my boobs lol. I think men are really blind to actuality as long as the -shape- is there. My bf always says he likes my butt. Let me tell you guys, I do not nice a nice booty in any sense of the word. What he means is he likes that my waist is smaller than my hips.
 
In talking about men about this, I've also been told that they don't like the supermodel look and prefer curvier women.

I don't know to what extent it's true, because the sex symbols are Megan Fox are extremely thin, but virtually every man I've talked to about it has said that the supermodel look is too skinny for him. Porn stars and the like are also very thin, though they have big breasts/butts. So there is definitely an inconsistency in what men have told me and the kinds of women featured in sex media made for men.
 
From hanging out with my boyfriend and our friends, I've figured out something about guys and their attraction to women. Guys feel attracted to females that have that perfect body, but would rather have a relationship with a curvy woman (thats not to say its the same for every guy, just a large number of them).
 
I hate people that try to generalize everything and find something common within people. Would Asian women be so desirable if these measurements were true?

I'm a guy and I could care less about boobs and ass. I prefer a woman with nice tight legs/back. If you have ever seen Lights (the musician) that is my ideal body type for a woman.

I know several guys such as myself, then I know guys that prefer ass, then some that prefer boobs, and some that prefer a big booty with decent size boobs, guys that prefer heavier set women, then guys that prefer skinny girls. Does it really matter in the end? There are enough men/women around to find someone that likes your body type.
 
36 24 36 that's an almost model's measurement. you have to be REALLY skinny to be able to get those, have you ever seen a 24" waist?? it's about WAFER THIN. virtually impossible and unhealthy for 90% of the population, unless your height is less than 5'5" and has tiny built.

i think the measurement between supermodels and celebrities are very very different, models usually range from about 30-32, 23-25, 34-36 and some are even smaller than that, and with average height of 5'10. many celebs doesnt even have that small measurements and nowhere near that tall, to be a model, you have to be bone skinny, and doesnt have anything much left, so i can understand guy wanting to have someone with more meat on them.

from what i know, usually guys would prefer a slightly chubby girls, compared to sickly thin girls =/
 
NedoCTB said:
I hate people that try to generalize everything and find something common within people. Would Asian women be so desirable if these measurements were true?
Click to expand...

Well in his article he talks about the difference between the ethnic groups and how the men in those groups prefer their women. The .7 waist to hip ratio is not for all races. He said in China for example (smaller body types), the men there "mostly" prefer there women to be at a ratio of .6. In Africa, the men there for the most part prefer their women around .8 -.9

It is frustrating and I do agree that there is a bit of a generalization. But there seems to be patterns in the main stream that show these results. Why is 36 24 36 so popular? I don't know. All I know is that there are so many beautiful women of different sizes. All are attractive somehow and it's up to each man or woman's preference whether it's the "ideal type" or not.

The medical theories Dr. Singh had behind this is another matter. Whether it's healthier, as he claims, to be at a ratio or .7, .6, or .8 depending on your race is a subject that can get too complicated for now. As far as attractiveness goes, I just don't believe it can't be put down to one standard. We're all much or varied for that.
 
Last edited:
Emerald said:

Well in his article he talks about the difference between the ethnic groups and how the men in those groups prefer their women. The .7 waist to hip ratio is not for all races. He said in China for example (smaller body types), the men there "mostly" prefer there women to be at a ratio of .6. In Africa, the men there for the most part prefer their women around .8 -.9
Click to expand...

Black women have a different body type, when their ratio is higher "straight on" it's lower when looking at the woman sideways, whereas a white woman would have a higher sideways ratio but a lower "straight on" ratio. As far as I remember anyway, men generally like for there to be a noticeable difference between waist and hips.
 
That's apparently what the "facts" are. I wanted to say that but knew I'd make it sound more complicated. ^_^
 
Last edited:
I would look sooooo ridiculas with those measurments... mind you i am very very short but i would look like people do in those crazy mirrors which warp your body...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top