Figure size 120 60 90. Research has proven what the ideal woman should look like.

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…

"90-60-90" - the parameters that are considered ideal in the modern world for a girl. Each of us, looking at ourselves in the mirror, thinks about how to get even a millimeter closer to the standard of beauty. But where did these numbers come from? And do men like this figure? In this article, we will analyze in detail: is it worth spending your energy to achieve the cherished volumes.

The ideal female figure is 90-60-90?

Ever since Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the male sex has extolled lush and rounded shapes. Monuments of sculpture and painting testify to this. For example, parameters close to “98-70-98” were considered ideal, and this, by modern standards, is already overweight and even fullness. Despite this, before, such women were considered simply created to procreate and bear children, and this was the basis of society.

Since the 19th century, girls began to highlight the waist with slimming corsets, which was very harmful to health. But for the sake of attractiveness and success, the beauties were ready for any sacrifice. The 20th century is the time of the development of the fashion industry, the emergence of common standards of beauty and style. It is believed that one of the first representatives of the "golden parameters" was none other than Marilyn Monroe. But her height was 166 cm, and she did not look thin at all.

What does the 90-60-90 pattern look like?

I would like to give a clear example of famous beauties, women with a figure whose parameters are as close as possible to 90-60-90, and are a cherished dream for many girls:

1. Monica Bellucci. The parameters of the Italian actress: 91-60-88 with a height of 178 cm. In her "over 50", she looks no worse than young and successful girls.
2. Jessica Alba. Caring for her appearance and figure is in the first place for her. It is not surprising that Jessica has parameters 88-61-88 with a height of 168 cm.
3. Vera Brezhneva. The singer claims that she acquired feminine forms only after the birth of her daughter. Now she can boast of her 90-60-90 with a height of 171 cm.
4. Angelina Jolie. This truly gorgeous woman, a caring mother and wife, in her 40s can boast of her 92-68-92 with a height of 173 cm.

How to achieve a figure of 90-60-90?

The desire of the fair sex for ideal parameters knows no bounds. Girls are ready to exhaust themselves with strict diets, wear tight clothes, work out abs and run marathons day and night, just to be attractive, including for men. But in fact, each man is unique in his own way, each has different tastes and preferences, the main thing is that the girl be healthy, have a radiant complexion, mouth-watering roundness and a sweet smile. There is no single standard for everyone, but there are a number of recommendations that will allow you to stay in shape and help create graceful proportions of your body:

1. Sports. You don’t need to spend whole days on fitness, it will be enough to devote time to yourself 3 times a week and change types of activity. Volleyball, tennis, running, yoga, cycling - choose an activity you like and do it regularly. If you have pronounced problem areas, then focus your workouts on them, but remember that the muscles also need rest, do not overdo it.
2. Proper nutrition. This is a guarantee not only of your health, but also of beauty, youth, good mood. It is advisable to eat 5-6 times a day in small portions, drink 1.5-2 liters of water, exclude flour, fatty, fried and sweet, give preference to vegetables, boiled meat, cereals and dairy products.
3. Cosmetic procedures. It is not only pleasant, but also useful. Various types of massage will bring not only pleasure, but also help to get rid of extra pounds.
4. Love yourself for who you are. This is the basic rule! If you are a shy girl with a bunch of complexes, you will never become the ideal for your man. Love your body and it will love you back.

Public tastes from century to century dictate a variety of norms and rules. There is such a norm for the female figure. For many years it was believed that the ideal figure with proportions of 90-60-90. Who came up with this rule? Is it relevant today? Let's figure it out together!

Is 90–60–90 really ideal?

Actually, these proportions are rather a way of standardization in the fashion world. For women who are not going to go on the podium, there is absolutely nothing to strive for such sizes.

When did these options appear?

With the active development of television and video advertising at the end of the 20th century, it became clear that in the frame the human body looks a little larger than in reality. In an attempt to correct such an optical illusion and to achieve the exceptional attractiveness of the models, the designers went for a little trick. Special requirements began to be imposed on girls in the fashion industry, the main of which was a fragile miniature figure.

The advantage of this innovation was the convenience of production. Making costumes for the next fashion show is much easier if you don't think about sizes..

The myth of Marilyn Monroe

Why thin girls were selected in the model is understandable. But why exactly 90-60-90?

The version of the origin of the increased interest in the notorious ideal was the popularity of the 60s star Marilyn Monroe.

The appetizing figure of the idol of that time exactly corresponded to the proportions mentioned above. But it should be borne in mind that the height of the diva was only 166 cm.

However, the taller girls didn't really care. Everyone wanted to be as beautiful as their beloved Marilyn! So, they wanted to have the same shapes and dimensions.

Are there models 90-60-90?

The most interesting thing is that except for Monroe herself, no one exactly fit the generally accepted characteristics.

Important! Many celebrities can boast of a seductive figure, elastic belly and voluminous forms, but not 90-60-90.

The closest parameters can be seen in such famous beauties as:

• Monica Bellucci (92–62–92);

• Penelope Cruz (89–62–92);

• Naomi Campbell (86–61–86);

• Stephanie Seymour (85–58–85).

As you can see, none of them meet the "gold standard" of beauty. But at the same time, each has an army of fans and many merits. Their bodies look flawless even without exact correspondence to the dimensions favored by fashion designers.

What figure is considered ideal today

Fortunately, modern girls are more and more thinking about their health than about some centimeters.

Important! The growing popularity of body positivity and the appearance of plus-size models on the catwalks shows that the ideals are changing again.

The main thing is that this time people do not fall into new extremes.

How proportions are set

Nutritionists say that for each person it is possible to calculate specific values ​​for the girth of the hips, waist, chest, as well as the entire body weight, which will be normal in his case.

This is not as difficult to do as it seems. To find out the optimal weight, you need to subtract 100 cm from the height value and another 10% from the value obtained.

Reference. The waist, the size of which is from 60 to 70% of the volume of the hips, is a sign of a proportional figure. Additional condition: the volume of the chest and hips should be approximately equal.

Different figure ideals for different countries

Historically, the culture and customs of individual parts of the world are very different from each other. Representatives of different nations have their own ideas about female beauty.

Asia

Asian girls strive to be as petite and fragile as possible. Moreover, in some countries, a pretty face is most valued, while in others, a thin neck is of particular importance.

Europe

Slimness is loved here. It is not necessary to have a small stature, but it is desirable to have a toned body!

So, Italians tend to demonstrate a thin waist, and the Dutch - long slender legs.

Africa

In Africa, women don't go on strict diets to keep fit. The inhabitants of these places from birth have an amazing sense of proportion, which does not allow them to eat too much. In addition, their lifestyle obliges to always be in motion.

America

But American women appreciate both the wasp waist and curvaceous forms. Every girl's dream here is an hourglass figure. The women of Peru and Mexico were especially successful in this.

The beauty of every woman is in her personality.

Reading the article will take: 5 minutes.

I'm driving around the city, I press 90.

A traffic cop is ahead - I reduce it to 60.

As soon as I pass a guy, I squeeze 90 again!

Male joke

Nine tens at the edges, in the center - sixty. This is not a mathematical formula - this is a mantra, a long-awaited dream for millions of women on Earth who are ready to put their lives on the line for the combination of these parameters in their figure. But where did these dimensions of the female body come from, who made them so coveted for the fair sex? And why the hell is this combination of numbers considered a sign of an ideal figure? Get comfortable - we'll figure it all out.

Long before the first attempt to "standardize" the female body - over three or four thousand years ago - the beauty of a woman was determined by her physique. In the absence of modern chains of McDonald's and Taco Bell eateries, the population experienced ... let's say, some difficulties with full and even more so three meals a day. Therefore, the first visual sign of women's wealth was not jewelry or clothing, but a full body - since a girl is "in the body", then her family is rich and eats quite decently. Thinness was considered a sign of poverty, i.e. fashionable today 90-60-90 men of the second millennium BC could not be attracted in any way - they would have considered their owner a poor slut.

The ancient Greeks are known not only as the creators of a democratic society, but also as the founders of the unspoken standards of the female figure that have been in force for many centuries. The Greek goddesses, embodied in marble and therefore survived to this day, possessed ideal proportions. The statue of Venus (Aphrodite) of Milos, created around 100 BC, when recalculating its size to the female standard of growth in Greece - 164 cm - has the following proportions: chest volume - 86 cm; waist - 69 cm; hips - 93 cm.

Another equally famous sculpture is Aphrodite of Knidos, created around the same time as the statue of the goddess of love from the island of Milos. The sculptor Praxiteles made this marble incarnation of Aphrodite, according to the records of that time, from life - she was Phryne, the most beautiful of the Athenian hetaerae. Here are the parameters of this beauty, recognized by sculptors, artists and philosophers of her era - height 64 cm, chest volume - 94 cm, waist - 72 cm, hips - 96 cm. After the disappearance of Ancient Greece, her standards of the female body were borrowed by the sculptors of the Roman Empire.

During the Middle Ages, beauty standards were set by the princes of the Catholic Church. According to them, the female body should not have even a drop of attractiveness at all. Medieval priests believed that beauty is a great sin, and therefore the ideal woman in their understanding should have a flat, low-set body without pronounced sexual characteristics. A typical beauty of that time is depicted in a painting by an unknown German artist - to be honest, she scares me to death!

The Baroque era, which developed in Europe at the end of the 15th century, set new parameters for naked female beauty. Baroque women are represented on the canvases of Rubens - isn't it true that his "Three Graces" today look too ... large? And according to the famous artist, they are created "from milk and honey." For your information: the graces or, in ancient Greek, the Charites are the goddesses of beauty, grace and charm.

The wasp waist against the backdrop of puffy skirts came into fashion from the beginning of the 16th century. For the first time, a female figure with a narrow waist became a symbol of wealth and nobility - women from the aristocracy did not need to do any physical work. And they saw their difference from the “wide bone” of the common people precisely in an unusually thin waist, which was helped by a corsage, and later, with the beginning of the 18th century, a corset. True, the constant wearing of a corset seriously impeded the bearing of a child and was guaranteed not to allow breastfeeding, but the fashionistas of the eighteenth century did not care. By the way, it was during this period of history that there was a steady demand for nurses - women who had recently given birth, who nursed newborn aristocrats for a certain fee.

In the 20th century, after two bloody global wars that claimed the lives of a significant number of men, women were forced to leave their homes and go to work. English fashion designer Mary Quant, following the new trends in society, created a new trend in fashion - baby doll and mini styles. The symbol of the new style was the English model Terry Twiggy, whose figure was ideally suited to the needs of Quant - height 165 cm, chest 79 cm, waist 56 cm, hips 81 cm. As Twiggy admitted in an interview, her figure has always been distinguished by natural thinness. The fashion for girls-“swanky” continued until the mid-90s, a little more “larger” Kate Moss - 86.5-58-89 became her new symbol.

So where did the modern "gold standard" of the female figure with parameters 90-60-90 come from? And he came from nowhere - there is not a single supermodel with such forms. Here are the parameters of the five most famous supermodels from the fashion world: Naomi Campbell - chest 86 cm, waist 61 cm, hips 86 cm; Christy Turlington - chest 86 cm, waist 58, hips 91 cm; Linda Evangelista - chest 86.5 cm, waist 61 cm, hips 89 cm; Cindy Crawford - chest 86 cm, waist 65 cm, hips 91 cm; Stephanie Seymour - chest 85 cm, waist 58 cm, hips 85 cm.

Sizes of the female figure 90-60-90 is a myth created by fashion designers who prefer female bodies with a narrow waist, high breasts and not too wide hips, which allows them to most clearly show their next clothing collection. A myth popularized by the media. THERE NEVER BEEN MODELS WITH THESE SHAPES so that the media does not tryndeli about this. And, it should be noted, model girls with forms close to the mythical "gold standard" have always had a height of 178 centimeters and above.

Extremely adored by me girls - forget about the notorious 90-60-90. Be the best wives and mothers in the world - it costs much more than the ordeal of losing weight! Why, why do you need to be like catwalk larvae? They are just hangers for the next collection of top fashion designers cheiropa, nothing more ...

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. Farther. 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. Height. 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 feature. 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.