Girls sizes 90 60 90. Research has proven how the ideal woman should look

So. Today we will talk about the female figure. More precisely - about a certain ideal figure. There is such a widespread opinion - that "ideal" is when 90x60x90. What are these numbers? This is the circumference of the hips - waist - chest. In centimeters. Where did it come from? Well, the question of female beauty has occupied many inquisitive minds for a long time - and now they measured and compared. And someone somewhere came to the conclusion - that all women who have ever been considered the owners of an ideal figure - the proportions are close to the same 90 60 90.

The first example is 90 60 90, most likely, anyone will call Marilyn Monroe. Her "indicators" are well known - they are 86-60-92. Actually, here it is - indeed, the numbers are close to 90 60 90. At the same time. It has always been obvious to me that the formula 90 60 90 is wrong. After all, it is clear that people are higher and lower. More complete and less complete. Well, we can't talk about fixed absolute values. It goes without saying that, at a minimum, we should talk about proportions, and not about absolute values.

Those. some part of the body must depend on the other by some coefficient. This is the first. Further. After all, no one has these same 90 60 90. Even Marilyn Monroe. Let's call a spade a spade: 86-60-92 is not 90-60-90. It's a completely different ratio. If the formula was correct - well, then Marilyn would not have become famous. They would have found exactly that female representative - who REALLY has 90-60-90.

Already the simple fact that no one has 90-60-90 in the generally recognized ideal figures - this by itself proves that this is an incorrect ratio. Therefore, we draw the only correct conclusion in this case: this formula is false.

So. Formula rejected. But instead of this formula, I want to pay attention to something else. It has always been clear to me that 90-60-90 is just a common myth. But here's what I noticed when comparing the proportions - that really surprised me. Namely: I paid attention to completely different indicators. The formula 90 60 90 measures "girth". But do we see this girth when we look? We see only the apparent width and length of individual parts of the body. We do not see their "girth". Therefore, it is logically simple - that in general "girth" does not need to be considered. So. I began to compare the width of the shoulders and the width of the hips. Not girth - but simply visual width. And this is what I got:

It is very difficult to find a suitable photo, with the right angle, with the correct arrangement of arms and legs - in fact, you need a photo at attention, feet shoulder-width apart. Therefore, I bring such photos - what I managed to find.

Marilyn Monroe

I understand that the angle is not very correct. But pay attention to the width of the hips and shoulders - they are identical. This is not an approximate match - they do match.

Paying attention to the coincidence of the shoulders and hips, I stupidly began to sort out all the actresses and all those who are generally considered to be "beautiful". It is important to understand here that everyone has different tastes and we are talking about an average opinion, i.e. some kind of mass recognition of beauty.

Megan Fox:

If you attach a ruler to the screen and measure the width of the hips in the widest part - and then put it on the shoulders - almost a complete match. She really has the width of the hips EQUAL to the width of the shoulders.

Angelina Jolie - the most successful photo. This is exactly the angle you need:

Actually a complete coincidence of the width of the shoulders and hips. The width of the shoulders must here and in other cases be taken from the upper section, not counting the tips, where it already begins to go down.

Since it was Jolie that I managed to find such a successful photo - just the right position of the body and the right angle - it is on it that I will graphically show the coincidence of the lines of the visual width of the shoulders and hips:

As you can see, the shoulders are taken to the sections from which the bevel down already begins, and not the maximum width. Ie, as it were, hands are not taken into account. And if we take these indicators, then Angelina Jolie - indeed - we observe a complete coincidence of these indicators.

Natalya Varley

Complete match

Jennifer Aniston

Kate Beckinsale

Milla Jovovich

Natalie Portman

Halle Berry

Maria Sharapova

Etc. etc.
Actually, I specifically went through all the famous actresses or simply recognized as beautiful. For example, I am not a fan of Marilyn Monroe. But as a researcher, I put it at the top of the list - because. she is indeed recognized as beautiful by a large number of people. For example, Sharapova - I remembered that she is considered very beautiful by the Americans. That's why I added it. Why am I saying this? To the fact that these are not some of my preferences and selection. A completely neutral analysis of those whom society massively recognizes as beautiful. And everywhere the equality of the width of the hips and shoulders can be traced.

While searching, I came across the following picture:

This is a composite picture-aggregate of women, recognized as the standard of beauty for their time. Please note - that in different periods there were popular high and low, wide and thin. But everywhere one can trace the preservation of the proportion of equality of the width of the shoulders and hips. In this picture, it just becomes obvious. That all contours - which actually stretch out, then shrink from time to time - preserve the equality of the shoulders and hips. Well, the presence of a pronounced waist. (shoulders = hips, and there is a waist) is the only constant of all contours.

Of course, one can object here: in the picture above, the author followed the proportions of the hips, waist, chest. Growth. But not the shoulders. And I will answer: yes, there are "approximate" contours. But nevertheless - the author followed the fidelity of the contours this time. And two - we just sorted it all out. And indeed they all have the same shoulders and hips.

How has this fact not been brought up yet? For me, it's a mystery. But here I am writing, apparently, for the first time about it. Not the girth of the hips, waist, chest should be looked at. The proportions of the shoulders and hips are very important. And, I will say, it makes sense. Correct proportions are very important. The left hand should match with the right. Left foot with right foot. The left half of the face should be symmetrical to the right. Otherwise, we will say that this is ugliness, that the features are wrong. Accordingly, there is another line of symmetry, maintaining proportions - this is the width of the shoulders and hips. This is important for women. Men have different proportions and, to be honest, I'm not very interested in doing this.

Of course everyone has different tastes. And ideas about beauty - too. But the coincidence of the width of the shoulders and hips can be traced in all generally recognized "ideals". In view of this, you can even give advice on fitness. After all, they strive to get the "ideal" body. Here is the desire for 90-60-90 - this is the way to disfigure your body. But the desire, in particular, to match the width of the shoulders and hips is the way to the right proportions. Accordingly, you can swing your shoulders if they are smaller than your hips. And swing your hips - if they are smaller than your shoulders.

It is very interesting that the figures can be very different. As you can see in that last picture - in different periods, women were popular either wider or narrower. Either higher or lower. The chest is either smaller or larger. Those. it generally varies greatly. But the symmetry of the width of the shoulders and hips is present everywhere.

Well, of course, all of the above, in addition to the equality of the shoulders and hips, have other female features. Of course - everyone has a pronounced waist. Well, and so on. It just isn't covered much in this article. This article refuted the hard values ​​of 90-60-90. A clear equality of the width of the shoulders and hips is shown - which, by the way, is present in most women. And here - I will say - there is nothing strange and no. After all, this is the "norm". But as for the waist - it just has to be. For all of the above, it is quite different - but everyone has it.

In general, everything must be done to the end. Yes - I showed that comparing "girth" is generally wrong - because visually we do not see the girth - we see a two-dimensional width / height. Actually, I also showed that not the chest should coincide with the hips (90-90), but the shoulders with the hips. And not just shoulders - but the visual top of the shoulders "without" arms. Further. It remains to disassemble the issue with the waist. And here - everything is very simple. We will take the visual width of the waist and divide by the visual width of the hips. Let's calculate these ratios.

Marilyn Monroe 63%
Megan Fox 66%
Angelina Jolie 62.5%
Varley ~ 70% (taken from other photos, could not find the exact one at all)
aniston 66%
Beckinsale 66% (from another photo)
Jovovich 68% (other photo)
Portman 71%
Berry 63%
Sharapova 71%
60/90 = 66%

Which suggests that the waist should be from 60 to 70 percent. 60 is already too thin, and 70 is already almost no waist.

That. the parameters of an ideal female figure are analyzed: no girths, but the visible width of the shoulders (without arms, that is, as if only half the width of the arms enters the shoulders) should coincide with the visible width of the hips. Between these lines there should be a waist that is 60 to 70 percent of the width of the hips.

Finally, I will give a scientific interpretation of the beauty of the female body. So. Female beauty is the ability to bear children. Everything is very simple here. For the birth of children, wide hips, health, youth are needed. And the beauty of a woman from the point of view of a man is an assessment of the ability of this woman to produce offspring.

Update 1
The more time passes, the more I understand how accurately I described everything here. In theory, it had already existed for a long time - I understood that it was wrong to count by girths. But when I laid out everything here, everything became much simpler. So. For further consideration of the topic, it is logical to give examples of a non-ideal figure. And here I ran into the most interesting. The fact is that the simplest thing is to analyze the proportions of actresses. The reasons are very simple: a lot of photos from different angles. Here I ran into a huge problem: it turns out that all the girls who are photographed a lot and often and whose photos are easy to find in Google pictures have absolutely correct proportions according to the theory outlined above. There, indeed, the visual width of the shoulders coincides with the hips and there is a waist of 62-68%.

It was very difficult to find the wrong proportions. Because they can't become famous actresses. They do not pass for a banal reason - they do not have the same proportions. I began to sort out not top actresses - who are taken to the main roles. And the secondary ones. Which seem to be beautiful - but they never made it to the main roles. Here among them I found what I need. I don’t just give their photos below - I couldn’t resist and in the graphic editor, as best I could, I adjusted their figure to the standards that I myself brought up above. The first photo is the original, the second photo is corrected by me for ideal proportions.

Arianny Celeste

Alice Milano

Both have a visual width of the shoulders slightly more than the hips. There is quite a bit - but this is already enough for the eye to see a flaw, and the models / actresses have not made it to the top. I fixed it - and it really got better. There are other examples that I have found. And I realized something while looking for flawed actresses. Actresses with the wrong symmetry of the shoulders-hips ... there are no photos that show this. Everywhere, either the shoulders and waist in the frame, or the waist and hips. Those. either top or bottom. Never together in the frame all entirely. Also, if everything is in the frame, then the shoulders are always turned. Those. the torso is turned - this visually reduces the shoulders and makes them visually equal to the hips, hiding the fact that they are larger. It is the work of the photographer - who consciously takes photos from such angles and such poses - to make the picture perfect. The photo that I could still find was very difficult to take. And for Alice Milano, this is generally cut out from a photo just from the street - the paparazzi accidentally took a picture. With some other actresses, I didn’t manage to find angles that reveal a flaw at all - they make sure that there are no such photos so much.

Update 2
Above are the ideal proportions. But this does not mean that this is the only beauty factor. This is one of the significant factors. Those. Simply - the correct proportions of the body. But there are others. Do not focus only on individual factors - and forget about others. A very important factor is simply banal health. A healthy body is beautiful. Unhealthy is ugly. Let there be ideal proportions - this will not fix the matter. Health is achieved by the right way of life. I have a purely theoretically planned separate article on this topic - but they may never get around to it at all. I have a lot of things planned - but not everything can be stated. So I'll lay out the basics briefly here. Health is proper nutrition. No other crazy diets. Proper food and diet is the food that our ancestors ate. Vegetable and meat. This is an absolute non-use of alcohol and tobacco. I am already silent about other substances. The human body does not require a single gram of alcohol and not a single cigarette in general for a lifetime to function properly. Not a drop of alcohol should be consumed in any form. Smoking is also absolutely not allowed. All this destroys your health, ages the skin. All this is visible. It's really visible. It destroys the body. Mandatory sports. For women, heavy sports are not allowed - dumbbells, barbells. But light fitness, gymnastics, etc. - required. The female body is prone to swimming with fat. This is a feminine trait. If you look at the photo of the "ideals" above, you will see that they are neither thin nor fat. There are no bones sticking out anywhere. And nowhere is the relief hidden by subcutaneous fat. The skin is healthy, toned, elastic, a certain relief is visible, nothing hangs down, there are no layers of subcutaneous fat anywhere that hides the muscular relief, no skin hangs anywhere. They not only have a visual width of the shoulders that coincides with the hips and a waist of 62-68% - their body radiates health. It's just nice to look at the skin. She is in excellent condition. For beauty, you just need to keep your body in a healthy state.

Well, once again in conclusion. All the girls above who have beautiful bodies and become top actresses are all involved in sports. These are athletes. Literally. There is no magic there. Natural data is natural data. Everywhere there is a huge job in the first place. Gyms are now available to everyone - there are no problems with this. There is no other way to take care of your body other than playing sports. A person who does not play sports cannot have any beauty in principle.

Update 3
I will add something that I have long wanted to add. The ideal female figure has an underdeveloped chest. It is very small compared to the pelvis, the volume of the lungs is very small. I did not want to initially use this word, this term. But it's still the right thing to do.

Update 4
After many years of thinking about the above information, I noticed the following: the width of the hips can be achieved by the width of the pelvis and the width of the hips. Those. the pelvis is at the level of the pelvis. The level of the pelvis passes just above the point where the legs diverge in different directions. And below the navel. The line of the hips - passes below the point of gre, the legs diverge. Those. owners of a narrow pelvis can pump up the muscles of the thighs and thereby visually normalize the figure. But the true ideal figure is the width of the hips precisely due to the pelvis. Those. the pelvis is the base of the waist, it is wide. And the narrowing goes to the bottom. If you look at all the ideal figures above, then everywhere the width of the hips comes precisely from the pelvis. Those. wide hip bone. It is this bone that should be widely spaced.

"90-60-90" has long been a cherished figure for almost every woman. Many girls are on strict diets in order to achieve these parameters, which most only dream of. But still, we must not forget that all people have completely different figures, and if someone is born with approximately the same parameters, then for another woman they can simply be an unattainable dream. Let's take a closer look at what "90-60-90" looks like, and whether such a figure is worth the effort that many women put in to achieve it.

Ideal figure, or "90-60-90"

In general, there is an opinion that such a standard of a beautiful female figure came from ancient times from Venus de Milo, and if we take a time closer to us, then the standard of beauty is still the one that had just such figure parameters. But pay attention to the fact that both of these beauties were small in stature, and, accordingly, the “90-60-90” figure is, in essence, magnificent feminine forms. And now thinness is in fashion, and therefore models with a growth of almost two meters with such parameters simply cannot be donuts! And all this because it is much more convenient for fashion designers to sew clothes on tall and graceful girls, on whom everything will look just perfect. But there are also women who do not have the cherished "90-60-90" and high growth. What should they do?

How to achieve "90-60-90"?

In order to boast an ideal model figure, you need to carefully monitor yourself. First, food. Nothing fried, fatty, sweet or starchy. It is best to eat five times a day, but in small portions. Secondly, sports. It is advisable to visit a fitness club every day or at least do a full exercise at home. Thirdly, massage. A variety of massages and wraps will help disperse the accumulated fat.

But the most important thing that you should always remember is that each person is unique and must love himself for who he is, then he will also arouse the admiration of others. In addition, it is worth noting that all men have different tastes, and if someone likes thin girls, then there are those who prefer more magnificent forms.

The article will focus on the ideal female body with parameters 90-60-90. Everyone will find for themselves the answer to the question of how such a standard of beauty arose. The text also lists celebrities with the specified forms.

90-60-90. What woman would not want to become the living embodiment of these? And even if in real life it is almost impossible to match them, but only to get closer, they have become a popular brand anyway: this is the name of the best fitness programs, modeling body cosmetics ...

Ask any man what a female figure should be, and he, almost without hesitation, will repeat the cherished numerical code. But when did the fashion for these ideal figures appear?

Versions of the appearance of a numerical idol

Today it is already difficult to get to the bottom of the truth why these average parameters became the embodiment of the dreams of women and men (only in different senses).

There are at least three versions - and they all have the right to life. And the truth, like this number itself, will be a kind of “golden mean”.

Version 1. Romantic Marilyn

Each era erected certain parameters on a pedestal. In ancient Greece, they were immortalized in statues of goddesses, in the Middle Ages, pale shy women with a faintly white complexion came into fashion, the Renaissance opened the world to mysterious women (the famous Mona Lisa), baroque and rococo girls with an aspen waist, the 19th century glorified natural femininity and beauty.

It was in the middle of the 20th century, when cinema gained crazy popularity, that the incomparable Marilyn Monroe appeared on the horizon. With a height of 162 centimeters, her figure was very close to the cherished figures and corresponded to such parameters as 88-56-90. Due to her short stature, it seems that she was far from thin, but nevertheless she set a fashion trend for the next century.

Version 2. Pure mathematics

Particularly pedantic researchers of this issue find the root cause of the appearance of the digital ideal in the exact sciences, namely in the law of normal distribution. Its main researcher was the German mathematician Karl Gauss. What is this law? In simple terms, we can say that any set of values ​​is grouped around an average value.

That is, all objects with a certain parameter (for example, the proportions of a figure) are formed around objects with an average value, and combining these groups allows us to get the "average of the averages". According to this law, translated into centimeters, such an approximate average value will be 90-60-90. One question remains, how did a complex scientific formula break into the world of fashion?

Version 3. Conquerors of the podium

The third version indirectly intersects with the second. It is believed that the standard - 90-60-90 gained popularity at the end of the 20th century, when fashion models became the ideal of female beauty. It was bred as an average value convenient for workers in the beauty industry. By the way, the German top model Claudia Schiffer was very close to him with the parameters of the figure - 95-62-92.

Of course, such forms are almost impossible to meet among the fair sex in ordinary life, but fashion houses do not hide - it is necessary to establish a strict selection to make the model faceless. Pay attention should not be on the woman, but on what she demonstrates on the podium. All designers meet the same standard, and those who do not meet it are left out of the fashion industry.

Celebrities of the past

Despite the rarity of such forms in nature, nevertheless, cinema, almost from the moment of its inception, was “occupied” by actresses with ideal proportions:

Marilyn Monroe

Figure parameters: 88-56-90.

Norma Jean (real name of a celebrity) has become for centuries not just an ideal of beauty, an icon of style, charm, charm and exceptional femininity. She can rightfully be called legendary.

They say that everything ingenious is simple. Both the first and the second in this incredible woman, actress and singer were in abundance. Graceful gait, white, styled curls, bright scarlet lips and, of course, perfect round shapes- such, at first glance, a simple set of female tricks made her image recognizable and unique.

It was Monroe who graced the cover of the first issue of Playboy magazine. Thus, her ideal figure was presented to the general public.

Gina Lollobrigida

Figure parameters: 94-53-90.

The unearthly beauty of the Italian actress, director, screenwriter and producer Gina Lollobrigida became famous by playing Esmeralda in the film Notre Dame Cathedral, as well as one of the main roles in Fanfan-Tulip. This incredible woman harmoniously combines perfect appearance, talent and wonderful spiritual qualities.

Lollobrigida is over 90 years old, but she continues to lead an active lifestyle, wears dresses with a neckline and does charity work.

Ornella Muti

Figure parameters: 89-61-89.

Which of the men was not delighted with the stunning girl from the film "The Taming of the Shrew", who managed to "tame" Adriano Celentano himself? Yes, it was the incomparable Ornella Muti or Francesca Romana Rivelli (real name of the actress).

Having crossed the sixty-year milestone, Muti retained a beautiful figure. This is facilitated by the regular training of the actress according to a special technique.

Stars of the 90s and 2000s

Time has changed, but not the fashion for 90-60-90. The most beautiful women in the world continued to strive for ideal forms:

Cindy Crawford

Figure parameters: 86-66-89.

At one time, Crawford became the highest paid fashion model. They talked about her, admired her, and for fashion houses with a worldwide reputation, Cindy's participation in the show was an honor. The authors of her photographs were the best photographers. Her unique highlights perfect figure and a mole above the lip.

Cindy Crawford considers healthy sleep to be the secret of her beauty.

Monica Bellucci

Figure parameters: 91-60-88.

The chic Italian actress Monica Bellucci is so beautifully built that it seems that you can’t think of a more perfect figure. All this, combined with a languid, soulful look and burning black curls, made her a sex symbol of the 90s. But at the same time, one should not forget that not only her appearance paved the way for her in the cinema, Bellucci is a very talented actress, subtly conveying the emotions of any character.

Monica herself never considered herself slim.

Tall, long-legged, slender, narrow-hipped - with the famous proportions of 90-60-90 - this is exactly what the ideal figure of a woman should be in our collective imagination.

Wherever you look - on television, in show business, on the pages of glossy magazines - they are everywhere, beauties of the same type. Owners of "ideal" figures are "taken" into the modeling business - into the world of glamor and luxury, rich suitors and public recognition. Every modern girl would like to get on this springboard to a better life. But not everyone has a lucky ticket for this - supposedly an "ideal figure" (the same 90-60-90).

Where did such a fashionable stereotype come from, exactly such an ideal figure? Why do many girls seem to go crazy trying to achieve this “ideal”, and is it really an ideal? If so, what is the ideal for? For whom? What is the ideal figure of a woman really?

Some who are lucky: the most ideal figure and not only

Some girls do not need to puzzle over how to achieve the perfect figure - it is given to them from birth. Moreover, complete with other good external data. This is despite the fact that some of their friends have had to deal with being overweight since childhood. Why such injustice?

The answers to all these questions lie in the psyche. Each person is born with his own set of mental properties, qualities and desires (vectors), and his body (and everything else) is fully consistent with his mental.

Let's take a closer look at the long-legged owners of ideal figures that have filled the entire mass media space. We will see common features in them - common mental characteristics and desires.

They all strive for demonstrativeness. To the stage, to the podium, to the lenses of video cameras and cameras. They are in no hurry to get married and have children, rather the opposite - it is difficult to imagine them doing such a thing, for example, as washing, or brewing borscht.

No. They prefer to remain in mistresses. Have a lot of fans. Turn the head not to one, but to many.

“It is better to have a good lover than a bad husband” (“bad” means not buying diamonds, cars, claiming borscht and clean socks) - this is their attitude.

Women with a skin-visual bundle of vectors have a model appearance. The archetypal role of a skin-visual woman whose mental state is in a state of “war” is to be in front of everyone, sing, dance, attract attention, excite minds, seduce. It is designed in such a way that all men will like it. This is the only woman who has a species role on a par with a man. That is why she has no desire to become the guardian of the family hearth - this will never bring her happiness.

She is the only woman who does not have a maternal instinct - by nature she is not giving birth, although in the modern world - a world of advanced medicine and great opportunities - a skin-visual woman often gives birth (usually by caesarean section).

Family is not her value. If she marries - most often she does not stay there for a long time. Look at the stars of show business (carriers of the skin-visual bundle of vectors) - their marriages, seemingly made out of great love and passion, are always short-lived.

Illuminated by the light of spotlights, the brilliance of diamonds and everyone's attention, the long-legged figure of a skin-visual woman was elevated to the rank of a social ideal. And in the minds of other women, an erroneous idea settled that it was in the figure that the matter was: in the cherished 90-60-90. And that these parameters are the key to a happy and rich life.

How to achieve the perfect figureif you are not skin-visual

There are girls whose figures are far from the generally accepted "ideal" 90-60-90. These girls are of a different physique - larger in bone, short, wide hips. A slow metabolism makes them prone to fullness.

Such women are endowed with an anal vector. Potentially, these are the best wives, golden mistresses and the most caring mothers. But sometimes anal girls, each of whom deep down dreams of a good groom, take the desires imposed by society (desires of skin-visual women) for their own. They want to sing, dance, model and have "perfect" figures.

It comes to the point that, in pursuit of an ideal figure, girls disfigure their bodies - they go for surgery to remove ribs or lengthen their legs.

But these will never bring happiness or achieve any goals to any of them. It's not really their desire. Their real desires are others related to home, family and children.

If we discard social stereotypes and fashion, if we take into account the fact that all women are mentally different (and, accordingly, the purpose of each of us is different), then we will understand that there is no single ideal of the female body. Types of the female figure correspond to the mental - vector set of each woman.

Determining what your figure should ideally be, begins with the awareness of your mental, hidden in the unconscious. There are 8 vectors - 8 measures of the mental. Depending on the composition of the vectors, we differ from each other mentally and somatically (you can read more about vectors in or).

In today's world - a world of abundance of food - it is people with an anal vector who are obese. A slow metabolism, which was a huge advantage in times of famine, has now become the cause of a global problem of excess weight.

A woman with an anal vector must find the balance of her weight, her ideal figure. You can’t “spread” up to 200 kg and swim in fat, because no matter how hard some media channels try to popularize “fat fashion”, obesity will never become beautiful, fashionable and healthy. But there is no need to strive for the stereotypical ideal of 90-60-90.

Considering your metabolism, you need to choose healthy foods, create a diet for yourself, and monitor the norm of what you eat. All this is not as simple as it seems - after all, in stress, a person with an anal vector intensifies his appetite, he wants to eat a lot of tasty and sweet things. But being aware of all the features of your mental, it is much easier to cope with stress and an obsessive desire to eat.

The rounded shapes of a beautiful figure of a woman with an anal vector are very feminine and also attractive to men. For example, men with a skin vector, who, although they look at long-legged skin-visual beauties, still marry anal women, experiencing a healthy attraction to them.

Our female happiness does not depend on some other people's ideals, on aspirations and goals imposed by the external environment. Real happiness can only bring fulfillment of one's own - real desires given by nature. And this happiness begins with understanding and accepting yourself…