Sunday, August 31, 2014

In praise of snake-hipped women

It's no secret that I have always tended to prefer slender women. Not for me the over-lush curves of the Earth Matrons and their over-stuffed brassieres with fatty flesh spilling out from them on every side. Now, if the well-fed curvy girl turns your crank, that's absolutely fine by me, but she tends to leave me, if not entirely cold, generally indifferent. But there is an additional reason to prefer the slender breed: she is not only more attractive, more fit, and more likely to retain her shape over time, she is also less likely to be a slut.
Shakira was seriously on point — hips really don’t lie. Even when it comes to a woman’s sexual history. That’s according to scientists at the University of Leeds, who report that a woman’s figure could play a crucial role in her decision to have sex. Specifically, women with wider hips are more likely to hit it and quit it, and to have more sexual partners in general. Less-hippy women, on the other hand, tend to take a more prudent approach to sex....

Women with hips wider than 14.2 inches (36 centimeters) had more sexual partners and one-night stands than those with hips narrower than 12.2 inches (31 centimeters). And women who tooted and booted it in 75 percent of their sexual relationships had hips nearly an inch (2 centimeters) wider than those who had fewer one-and-done encounters. Their less-curvy counterparts “really only had sex with people in the context of relationships, demonstrating a more cautious sexual strategy,” Hendrie said.
So it's essentially a win-win scenario for everyone but the breast men. This may also explain why slutwalks tend to be populated by hulking, wide-hipped creatures who look as if they would be best utilized by being rendered down for tallow.

51 comments:

Akulkis said...

I'm with you on the slender women's complete domination in the aesthetics department.
I've never understood the chubby chasers and fatty fuckers. To me, D = Droopy, and DD = doubly droopy. But not only that, a woman who overeats wears her emotional disorders on her thighs, stomach, arm flab, chin, and, as you note, spills out of her overstuffed bra.

The reason for more one-night-stands is simple -- I've known a lot of guys who will specifically home in on the fatties specifically because their belief is that they're easier to get in the sack, with no intention of anything more than a one-night-stand. The term "hogging" is one of several for the practice.

I used to serve with one such individual, by the name of Hoger. I always used to refer to him as "Hogger," because every time we were out at a bar, you couldn't pull him away from the fatties.

Akulkis said...

I think guys who are "breast men" are typically as emotionally immature as the women they chase. I know of some exceptions, but they are rare.

Cataline Sergius said...

The key question is one of sexual opportunity.

Personality differences aside, would an Audrey Hepburn (who I freely admit was elegantly desirable) get hit on as often as a Marilyn Monroe?*

Sex is a receptive game for women. A woman who is approached more often, has more opportunity to find a man who can push her Alpha hot button.



* I originally framed that question as Gwyneth Paltrow vs Salma Hayek but that was really unfair.

Vox said...

The key question is one of sexual opportunity.

Possibly, but I doubt the difference between "all the time" and "almost all the time" is significant.

And yes, I would absolutely prefer Paltrow to Hayek if the personalities were left out of the equation. Not that Hayek isn't attractive, but for me, it's not even close. Hepburn over Monroe as well.

Ben Cohen said...

Can you give an example of a slender versus curvy woman? A woman like Scarlet Johanssen is slender and curvy (hourglass figure).

Hanns Strudle extra gooey said...

Some chubbier lasses forfeit the dudes and go lesbian: Queen Latifa, Rosie O' Donnell, etc. Proving to me that there are some hogs beyond the hogggers standards.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Paltrow or Hayek? That's a tough one. I think Paltrow has 6 inches on Hayek in terms of height, so maybe go with Paltrow. I wish snake hipped women were all like Vox describes. My best friend'friend's life would be intact right now.

kbswift said...

There might be a biological explanation for this as wider hipped women are less likely to suffer birth complications and thus can be less picky about their mates as they would on average have more children than slender hipped women. Or maybe wider hipped women had more female hormones during adolescence, dulling their ability to make fewer tingle-based mating choices.

Cataline Sergius said...

Possibly, but I doubt the difference between "all the time" and "almost all the time" is significant.

Would the type of approach a girl consistently receives alter personality development, I wonder?

A girl who is receiving more overtly sexualized approaches from puberty onward, versus one who receives those that are more (I hate to use this term) romantic.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Interesting. I would have thought women with more boyish figures were more masculine (more T) and thus more promiscuous.

My personal preference is for slim women with some recognizably feminine curves (including big tits). No fatties for me, and no women with the figures of adolescent boys. The more feminine, the better.

"I've never understood the chubby chasers and fatty fuckers"

Same here. By the same token, it's difficult for some of us to understand the motivations and tendencies of men who go for mannish, hipless, flat-assed and flat-chested girls.

Conscientia Republicae said...

I got hips and ass out of the deal. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

sigbouncer said...

"Yet the study is suggestive. Earlier research has shown that a woman’s waist-to-hip ratio correlates with her attractiveness — playing a major role in influencing the number and quality of men available to her for sex."

My first thought is this ^^^.

This is why there are mainly big boobie guys and the assman (you can call me Cosmo Kramer) out there when stereotyping men's preference. You don't hear of many guys who prefer stick chicks. And as one whose job was to observe the ongoings of patrons in clubs and bars. I can tell you from experience the stick chicks weren't getting hit on at near the same ratio as the other two types.

So more guys going after these types of women in appearance equals not only more opportunity for these women but more sexual confidence as well. For myself, this one is a no brainer.

02c0f218-3120-11e4-aafc-a3db42109faf said...

Wow, Vox prefers his women to look like boys.

Well, to each his own.

cailcorishev said...

Possibly, but I doubt the difference between "all the time" and "almost all the time" is significant.

Right, it's not. Or take the classic case: Ginger or Mary Ann. Mary Ann might even get a majority of men, but that's really not the point -- they would both get enough approaches that they could have as much sex as they like. If the Mary Anns of the world have less sex than the Gingers, it's because they chose to, not because they lack opportunity.

cailcorishev said...

Wow, Vox prefers his women to look like boys.

I'm so tired of aspies.

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

How does one accurately measure hip width? Are they talking about the distance between the bone? or are they including the padding? Genetically, I feel like the bone width is more important than where your fat deposits are located. Then again I guess if your fat deposits are "full" in the region where the baby grows it could be sending out the signal that you are ready to breed.

Petite women that don't have flat butts can still have decent waist-hip ratios even if the hip width is small, though it is not readily apparent from the front.

Vox said...

By the same token, it's difficult for some of us to understand the motivations and tendencies of men who go for mannish, hipless, flat-assed and flat-chested girls.

There is nothing mannish about Audrey Hepburn or Gwyneth Paltrow.

Wow, Vox prefers his women to look like boys.

No, Vox prefers refined female beauty to mere raw prettiness.

freeonus said...

The measurement referenced as begin the significant factor is of the pelvic bones and says nothing about the fatness of the woman. A women with a smaller measurement is not necessarily thin nor is a woman with a larger measurement necessarily fat. A smaller measurement can still belong to a curvy woman if her waist is also smaller.

It seems that you might have a different definition of 'curvy' than I understand it to mean.

Conscientia Republicae said...

This just in! Space Bunny is mannish! So says a random alpha numeric string of characters!

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

If its a bone measurement is Hayek is even wider than Paltrow? Hayek is 5'2 and Paltrow is 5'9. 13" hips on a Hayek will look considerably more curvy than on Paltrow.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Yes, it is all proportional. Cup size on a woman five feet tall will look different than on a woman 5'9". My wife is the same height as Paltrow but has much wider hips, same bust size, so she looks much different than Paltrow.

SQT said...

I bet age of maturity has something to do with a girl's promiscuity too. My sister-in-law is much bustier than I am and she matured much younger. She had an adult body without the adult maturity needed to handle the sudden male attention she got and, predictably, was very promiscuous at a young age. I had a few more years of looking boyish so when I did start getting male attention I was older and more able to handle it.

76a86186-641e-11e3-a4c7-000bcdcb5194 said...

I have to agree with Vox. I'll take sleek and leggy over a big bustline.

TetanusScrote said...

This is unfortunate news. I like voluptuous women the most (traditional sense of the word, not the one co-opted by fatties). Very hard for me to spring wood for women of meager chests. Just means I have to aim for younger goods when I decide to have kids, way younger, before they get corrupted.

LAZ said...

As my old roommate put it, "They feel like boob anywhere you touch them."

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

This just in! Space Bunny is mannish! So says a random alpha numeric string of characters!

This just in! Slender, busty, feminine women with curves are intimidating to a lot of men! So says a string of deltas, gammas, and omegas!

Conscientia Republicae said...

You should go for the height and or curves. Breasts can always be taken care of later.

PVW said...

Would the type of approach a girl consistently receives alter personality development, I wonder?

A girl who is receiving more overtly sexualized approaches from puberty onward, versus one who receives those that are more (I hate to use this term) romantic.

I bet age of maturity has something to do with a girl's promiscuity too. My sister-in-law is much bustier than I am and she matured much younger. She had an adult body without the adult maturity needed to handle the sudden male attention she got and, predictably, was very promiscuous at a young age.

My thoughts: There is another possibility, if she is the more reserved and introverted type, and especially if she comes from a conservative background, she might be of the type to shut down and be very cautious about male interest, because the attention is way too much. As a result, she might not be promiscuous at a young age, but might be the complete opposite, and even prudish.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Hey, I heard hip and arse implants are popular, so you guys stuck with chicks with boyish curves are in luck.

Mindstorm said...

Hmm, I'm baffled. Was she curvy, or slender?

SQT said...

My thoughts: There is another possibility, if she is the more reserved and introverted type, and especially if she comes from a conservative background, she might be of the type to shut down and be very cautious about male interest, because the attention is way too much. As a result, she might not be promiscuous at a young age, but might be the complete opposite, and even prudish.

That wasn't the way I saw it happen among my friends but who knows really? We all have our own theories I suppose. I did know a couple of girls who learned really young to cover up their assets if they weren't comfortable with male attention and that usually did the trick. Some girls are natural flirts and some aren't. I have no clue if it has anything to do with our natural endowments. It does appear that plastic surgery is quite the equalizer here. A flirty girl with smaller breasts can get implants and, often, all the attention she wants after that. I'm naturally reserved so surgical enhancements never appealed to me-- though I have a few female relatives that chose otherwise.

Michael Maier said...

I can see the point about KEEPING the figure as the woman gets older... dammit.

I used to be a boob man but now I just dig women who are more slender and fit while looking good for their body frame.

That said, last weekend I saw a goddess in a slinky dress who was slim AND had a VERY large arse. Gorgeous long dark hair, almost to her waist. Stunningly fine figure of a woman.

Some wenches, you can almost believe they're worth killing over.

Bob said...

I love curvy hips on a girl, to me they're part of the feminine figure, and attractive as hell.

That's only the HOURGLASS style hips though, and has to be slender still. The fatties posing as "curvy" are a different beast (heh) entirely.

I don't want my women to look like a boy.

Doom said...

I've got to say, I am doubting the study. Just from personal experience, but, most of my women have been on the thinner to middling side. I do like dames with some meat, I just didn't seem to end up with them often. I often found the others preferable, if for reasons other than size/shape. If I am not really terribly interested in chunk-bunnies, it's just that they aren't off my slate, all else being equal. One requirement is that they have shape, bumble bee curves.

Then again, not all men are equal. How things shake out for those on the edge of charts, especially when different in several ways, one way or the other, produce outliers. Sometimes very strange patterns. They eye is easy to deceive on some things. The average man, perhaps, takes what he can get?

The other problem with the study is that it assumes women have control. They don't, not for men who are experienced. Of the many, I would say only a third of the fish, at the very most and I am doubting that strongly, slipped the hook. The rest were put, or tossed, back. Divorce, marriage, is one thing. Relationship success is our, mens', area of choice. Though, true, most men don't realize that.

Akulkis said...

That wasn't the way I saw it happen among my friends but who knows really? We all have our own theories I suppose. I did know a couple of girls who learned really young to cover up their assets if they weren't comfortable with male attention and that usually did the trick. Some girls are natural flirts and some aren't. I have no clue if it has anything to do with our natural endowments. It does appear that plastic surgery is quite the equalizer here. A flirty girl with smaller breasts can get implants and, often, all the attention she wants after that. I'm naturally reserved so surgical enhancements never appealed to me-- though I have a few female relatives that chose otherwise.

Given the choice between a woman having, say, a B-cup naturally, or surgically enlarged to D... I prefer the B-cup in so many ways:

1. Implants feel terrible. Bag of Sand, indeed.
2. B-cups don't get all saggy and stretched out like Principal Choksondiks from South Park.
3. When a woman is laying on her back or side, implants just look ridiculous.
4. Did I mention they feel terrible.

Akulkis said...

That's only the HOURGLASS style hips though, and has to be slender still. The fatties posing as "curvy" are a different beast (heh) entirely.

Fatties who use that "curvy" line, I like to hit them with this:

"Curvy means both convex AND CONCAVE curves, not just one continous convex curve like a damned beachball -- and no, your armp and the notch between your legs doesn't count."

Kim said...

@Akulkis: "I think guys who are "breast men" are typically as emotionally immature as the women they chase."

That's a silly generalization. I equally could retort that men who like small, skinny women remind me of child molesters. But both are wrong, of course.

The key is that some men prefer womanly body shapes over boyish body shapes. I don't have a problem with either, having had plenty of both "hourglass" and "stick figure" shapes, but don't fall into the trap of demonizing those whose (very personal) preferences don't match yours.

Akulkis said...

Kim?
Audrey Hepburn was boyish?????

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Glen Filthie said...

Those skinnies tend to have more problems in child birth. A wider pelvis on women is much more conducive to reproduction than a narrow one.

My brother and I have this exact same disagreement. My wife was curvy and a little heavier. His was a slender bombshell. My wife delivered her first child in minutes according to the text book. His wife went through hours of shrieking hell.

Whatever.

You're looking for an attitude and mind set first, boys. Life has to be good outside the sack as well as in it. Proceed as you see fit.

The Deuce said...

My main problem with this is that by measuring only hip size, rather than waist-to-hip ratios or bone structure or fat distribution or something else along those lines, this study likely found what is primarily a trait held by *overweight* women. But being overweight correlated with having poor impulse control, which in turn also correlates with sexual incontinence. That, I reckon, is most of the explanation here.

Kim said...

Akulkis, I never mentioned Audrey Hepburn. But a comparison is interesting. Monroe's statistics were 36-23-36; Hepburn's were 34-20-34. So Hepburn's figure was actually more of an hourglass than Monroe's, so she wasn't boyish at all. But while MM had a 36C cup size, AH's was 34B. In terms of weight, there was only about a 15-18lb difference between them, but no one can mistake one for the other.

Now, in terms of which I prefer: well duh. Hourglasses forever!!!!

And just on case you're wondering, I'm a man (despite the first name).

John Dee said...

I am in a relationship now with a woman who has gone away from normal size and crossed well into the obesity mark (5' 6", 200+ lbs for her. I am average height and weigh a lot less), and I have lost all physical attraction to her. The mere presence of that godforsaken turkey neck is more powerful an attraction killer than a liquid nitrogen cold shower. Mercifully, she has lost all interest too (this is a bit of a red flag to me), but this started happening before she got really fat (I think it came from the effects of the pill). Still, I find myself literally praying that she loses some weight, because her current state is utterly disgusting.

I've tried to help her lose weight and I've communicated how important it is for her to be fit, but nothing is working. She is pushing hard for a ring, but I can't see myself doing that just yet. I find the fact that she feels herself "owed" marriage to be infuriating in light of how much she has let herself go, not to mention the fact that marriage places all the financial risk on the man nowadays.

I can't bring myself to cut her loose either, because it would devastate her and I really do care about her. She is in her early thirties, so to start over at this point would be very difficult and possibly deny her the ability to have a kid.

There are times that I wish I could catch her in the act with someone else, just so I could cut the strings and be done with this incel relationship nightmare. I swear if I ever get out of this, I am going after the kind of snake-hipped woman you speak of in this post. It isn't a really dealbreaker for me, but secretly, I have always wanted to get a svelte waif for a girlfriend, and I am going to get that scratched off my bucket list if I can't make the current relationship work.

I know damn well that if I put this quandary in a mainstream forum, a team of cackling hens and their manboobed supplicants will descend to tell me that I am Satan and I should be drawn and quartered for doing anything less than wifing her noble, blameless, self up and happily bending over for whatever else the feminine imperative orders me to shove in my tailpipe next. Either that, or they'll immediately tell me that she is uh--maaazing, and can do way better, blah, blab, blah.

That's why I am here, real honest answers from the one corner of the internet that acknowledges that being a man with normal male thoughts and desires does not necessarily make one Charles Manson.

I am at my wit's end here. What should I do?

P.S.: I stumbled upon a Daily Mail article stating that the average woman had a waist size under 27 inches for most of the 20th century. Is that really true or did I mess up the reading of the measurements? If the 27" and less thing is so, it sounds like the 50's and earlier were mostly populated with women that could get modeling contracts today. How is that even possible?

freeonus said...

John Dee,

FWIW, I am a woman in my mid-50's.

My first thought was RUN AWAY! On second thought, encourage her to get a full physical to make sure that she doesn't have some kind of physical problem that needs to be addressed. If she does, and she is willing to make the changes necessary, then maybe you'll want to marry her. But, if she insists on the status quo, things are not going to improve after marriage. And, consider the possibility that she really doesn't want to marry you and this is her way of sending that message. Because if a woman wants to marry you, she will maintain her desire and her desirability until after the wedding.

On the PS....At age 21,pre-children, 5 ft, 97lbs, my measurements were 34,22,35 and I wasn't considered particularly skinny. Girls are bigger nowadays.

freeonus said...

John Dee,

Wait...I was wrong and don't want to mislead on what would be standard curviness - found the measurements in my sewing book...32,21,34 taken for my wedding dress. The others were the 110 Ib me in my mid/late twenties after marriage. See what I mean about the marriage thing?

Conscientia Republicae said...

John Dee,

RUN RUN RUN AWAY
RUN RUN RUN AWAY
RUN RUN RUN AWAY

You aren't married to her. You don't owe her anything. Go get you a snake hipped woman. You are getting older and wasting time.

thetroll said...

> I am at my wit's end here. What should I do?

Acquire hot workout partners. Clearly enjoy exercising and discussing being fit with them. If this scares her into the effort it'll take to keep you, happy ending. If it doesn't, hey, happier ending.

cailcorishev said...

John Dee, when you're thinking about consigning yourself to a sexless marriage rather than "abandon" her, remind yourself that she doesn't seem to be all that concerned about your needs that you've expressed. Yes, it's possible that she has a medical problem like low thyroid; but still, when you tell her it matters to you, she should be running off to see a doctor about that, doing research online for ways to get the weight loss started, etc. The bottom line is that she can't or won't lose the weight to keep you. Unless you're going to sacrifice your life for her comfort, it really doesn't matter whether it's can't or won't.

Trần Văn Quảng said...

hoc marketing
khóa học internet marketing
ban hang truc tuyen
Ky nang ban hang
Kinh doanh truc tuyen
Kien thuc seo onpage

Gunnar von Cowtown said...

I realize I'm a day late and a dollar short, but please bear with me.

Disclaimer: I'm all about the waist-to-hip ratio. Various studies have shown that the cross-cultural ideal waist-to-hip ratio for a woman is approximately 0.70. To wit, a woman with a 24" waist and 34" hips has an idyllic ratio of 0.70588. Similarly, a woman with an 18" waist and 26" hips has an equally idyllic ratio of 0.69231. Barring other factors, both figures would be equally feminine and attractive in appearance, and someone hit on this previously with Paltrow vs. Hayek. In regard to Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe, according to Kim's stats above, their hip-to-waist ratios were 0.588 and 0.638, respectively. Both ratios are technically "curvier" and more exaggeratedly feminine than even the ideal, which totally "turns my crank" and neither woman gets hypothetically kicked out of bed for eatin' crackers. With this in mind....

1. Although the aforementioned study measured waists, they did not take the ratio into account, only the distance between iliac crests. Although I can't prove it, it stands to reason that the researchers were trying to prove "hourglass=more attractive=more options = more promiscuous", but the data didn't support that conclusion. As noted above, hip width alone tells us nothing about female attractiveness. What if these wide-hipped women (who had more sexual partners and one-night stands) were disproportionately "shambling shoggoths" with copious belly fat? IIRC, it's a common red pill observation that land whales have more "pump and dump" relationships, because of limited SMV options. Also, suppose that the snake-hipped women (who really only had sex with people in the context of relationships) were disproportionately narrower at the waist, and thus more objectively attractive. It's no secret that more attractive women have an easier time securing commitment from men. Ergo, lower "n". This hardly seems surprising, and the researchers really should have published their findings on the ratio and promiscuity. That would have been interesting.

2. Vox, although I thought I'd found a true aesthetic comrade when you once waxed poetic about Shriekback's "Nemesis", but you kinda lost me at "snake-hipped". However, this may be a category error on my part. Do you also find "snake-waists" attractive (0.0 waist-to-hip ratio), or do you prefer narrower hips and a much narrower waist (0.7 waist-to-hip ratio)? I think this where some of the commenter confusion arises between "boyish" and "slender".

Gunnar von Cowtown said...

That should read "Do you also find "snake-waists" attractive (1.0 waist-to-hip ratio)", not 0.0. My bad.

bobn said...

John Dee - why are you doing this to yourself? Marriage to that sow would be insufferable - no sex and she will respect you even less (if such is possible).

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.