Missing The Point(s)

Apparently all these women are desirable, according to scientists, because their figures have the ideal waist-to-hips ratio:

…which only proves that scientists don’t know diddly. None of the women can be called attractive.

Here’s a pro tip from a longtime lecher (that would be me): put Nigella Lawson in the lineup, and those other women wouldn’t rate a single look.

The perfect ratio is: big boobs, small waist, wide hips. Otherwise known as an “hourglass” figure, you pencil-pushing dweebs.

Afterthought: I bet that some of these purported “scientists” were female — which would explain everything.




  1. The thing that amazes me is that so often the standard for beauty seems to be somewhere between “skinny” and “built like an underfed 11 year old boy”, but then a more voluptuous woman comes along and everyone loses their minds. Cases in point: The aforementioned Nigella Lawson, Christina Hendricks, Sophia Vergara, Kim Kardasian. (As for the last one, yeah, she’s nuttier than squirrel crap, but she IS a beautiful woman IMHO).

    It’s almost as if the “experts” don’t really know what men like……

  2. I think you’ll find that those “scientists” are not only women, but chubsters and land whales themselves. What saddens me is that women are pushing fat acceptance rather than healthy living to deal with obesity.

    1. Ah, yes, the “Ashley Graham Syndrome.” I’m getting very, very tired of hearing and seeing “courageous” pigs flaunting their inadequacies to the world. Be fat. Be anorexic. I don’t care; it’s your body. But don’t tell me I’m wrong if I don’t find you attractive.

  3. Seems like ever since Julia Roberts arrived, the standard “beauty” for the People and Elle set should have carp lips, big chin, broad shoulders, no hips, bolt-on boobs and 5% body fat.
    See: Me-again Kelly. Yech.
    I’m with Kim.

  4. I dunno, I’d do the blonde.
    One thing I have noticed, however, is that as I’ve gotten older the range of what I’d consider attractive has gotten larger.
    When you’re 20 the thought of getting with a woman of 40 would be virtually unthinkable. But when you’re 60 that same woman is looking pretty good.

    1. At least she doesn’t look uncomfortable in the kitchen; which, if it was mine, she’d have to do the cooking because I’d be too distracted.

  5. Hmm….a couple of other points. First, men tend to divide into one faction that wants buxom, another that prefers the slender look. For the record, I favor the latter.

    The second is that a pleasant manner counts for a lot. For a woman, dating is like fishing. Looks are the bait. Personality is the hook. Character is the line.

  6. All the stayed-around-a-while ladies with whom I’ve associated were generally way above average for smarts and character, albeit quite physically attractive to me. I can’t deal with women who, having said, “Good morning,” have told you all they know.

  7. Trying to reduce what’s attractive to a numbers ratio is idiotic. But they keep trying.

    Once knew a lady who wasn’t slim, or lean, she was >skinny<; on her it worked, someone else would've looked like they were starving.*

    Have known a couple of ladies who were not in the 'proper ratio', but DAMN, they looked good, and were fun to be with.

    You can't reduce all this to numbers; they desperately want to, but it won't work.

    *First time I met a model, first thought was "Pretty, but she needs a week of cheeseburgers. Desperately."

Comments are closed.