11 March 2007
Micrometer of the beholder
I persist in believing that some things simply cannot be quantified too many intangibles but who listens to me? Not these folks:
The researchers, from the University of Gdansk in Poland, studied the vital statistics of 24 finalists in a national beauty competition, together with those of 115 other women. They said that while weight, height and hip ratio were normally used to assess female attractiveness, these might not throw up crucial differences between the super-attractive and others.
For men, scientists said height, BMI, waist-to-hip and waist-to-chest ratios were key measures.
Super-attractive women had a thigh-to-height ratio some 12 per cent lower than other women, giving them a more slender look. Skinfold tests on the calf showed 15mm of fat compared with 18mm in other women.
The study also showed that the average super-attractive height was 5ft 9in, with the waist 76 per cent of the size of the chest, and 70 per cent of the size of the hips. Models built like Naomi Campbell came closest to the ideal.
"Attractiveness of a woman's body is one of the most important factors in mate selection, and the question what are the physical cues for the assessment of attractiveness is fundamental to evolutionary psychology," said Leszek Pokrywka, who led the study.
Well, okay. I will stipulate, for the purpose of argument, that Naomi Campbell looks good. These are the criteria, say the researchers:
So: just under 5-foot-9, somewhere around 34-24-35, legs that go on for hours, if not necessarily days.
Not that I would look askance at someone meeting these criteria, but I'd like to think I am slightly less superficial than that, and unlike, say, your average Stuff reader, I do not presume that I am somehow entitled to someone with supermodel looks. Of course, if Naomi calls, all bets are off.
Your perfect guy is a Christian Bale type:
I match one of these, anyway.
(Via Fark.)Posted at 8:00 AM to Table for One