{"id":18038,"date":"2025-04-03T22:27:18","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T22:27:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ourtimenew.com\/?p=18038"},"modified":"2025-04-03T22:27:18","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T22:27:18","slug":"the-ideal-womans-body-according-to-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ourtimenew.com\/?p=18038","title":{"rendered":"The Ideal Woman\u2019s Body, According To Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\n\u201cBeauty has no size, no skin tone, no hair color, no eye color, no facial features, no muscle definition\u2026 for we are all uniquely beautiful and the standards are unreal.\u201d \u2013 Anonymous<\/p>\n

Beauty is one of those societal standards that shouldn\u2019t even be a standard, and yet, here we are. Every decade, a new concept takes over and everyone starts scampering to fit in with whatever\u2019s considered the best. In the 1950s, during Marilyn Monroe\u2019s reign years, blonde hair and light skin were in vogue. It almost didn\u2019t matter what your body type was. You\u2019d scale through a lot of hoops if you fit into the major criteria. In the \u201860s, people adored willowy women with an adolescent physique. The \u201880s were crazy about athletic, curvy women with toned arms. The \u201890s wanted their women extremely thin with translucent skin. [1]
\n\"\"
\nFrom 2000 to date and backed up by scientists (of all people), the perfectly beautiful women must have large breasts, a large butt, an iron-flat stomach, a thin waistline, thigh gaps, and flawless skin. Think Jennifer Lopez, Beyonc\u00e9, Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner, and it somehow doesn\u2019t matter how this perfect body was achieved. <\/p>\n

Despite the latest craze with big butts and boobs, fashion companies and modeling agencies have retained the 90s standards, still insisting on extremely skinny, tall women with well-defined facial features. Think Olga Sherer, Kim Noorda, and Kaia Gerber. So many women have put themselves through some of the worst kinds of pain to achieve this ultra-thin body size, but thankfully, strong statements are being made for a review of these standards. [2]<\/p>\n

Large breasts, a thin waist, and large hips<\/p>\n

Although the concepts are similar, science has a more specific idea of what the ideally beautiful women should look like.<\/p>\n

According to researchers from the University of Texas, the truly beautiful female body is geared toward the 2000s standards. The ideal woman is 1.68 meters tall, with a bust, waist, and hip size of 99, 63, and 91 in cm respectively. That\u2019s also 5\u20195 ft. tall, with a bust, waist, and hip size of 38.9, 24.8, and 35.8 in inches respectively.<\/p>\n

Are you thinking of someone who has these statistics right now? Well, think Kelly Brooks.
\n\"\"
\nKelly Ann Parsons, professionally known as Kelly Brooks, is an English model, actress, and media personality. Kelly fits the scientists\u2019 description perfectly and has progressively made massive waves in the fashion and modeling industry. Regarded as a style icon around the world, the 40-year-old was crowned FHM\u2019s sexiest woman alive in 2005 and has been modeling since she was 16.<\/p>\n

Kelly didn\u2019t always have a smooth run in her modeling career. She was occasionally rejected by agencies for being considered \u201ctoo plump\u201c. They always wanted the thinnest women available and Kelly just didn\u2019t fit the description.<\/p>\n

Today, while still running a successful career fueled by advertising campaigns for major companies, Kelly is the poster girl for perfection, according to science.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s so special about the 99-63-91 spec?<\/p>\n

Several past and recent studies have proven that males are predominantly more attracted to curvier females. [3]<\/p>\n

This is because the male mind subconsciously links youthful curviness to fertility. Attractiveness is heavily based on the ability to procreate, and in light of this mentality, the most attractive women are those who look most suitable for childbirth. This is where the term \u201cchildbearing hips\u201d stems from. <\/p>\n

The 99-63-91 body with a height of 1.68m possesses these so-called fertile and youthful characteristics. However, in reality, several factors would determine a woman\u2019s level of fertility, and only a small part is dependent on body type. Anybody could deal with infertility issues despite her size, although obesity has been found to contribute to infertility, miscarriages, and pregnancy complications in women. [4]<\/p>\n

The scientists might have a point somewhere, although beauty will always be highly relative and dependent on a person\u2019s standards.<\/p>\n

The truth you should know about the preferred body type in modeling<\/p>\n

According to Jennifer Lee, a fashion expert who worked with Chanel\u2019s top designer, the late Karl Lagerfeld, models are chosen solely based on the clothes they would showcase.<\/p>\n

The modeling and fashion industry is not exactly interested in any beauty standards. Skinny ladies are mostly chosen because they are less likely to distract an audience\u2019s attention from the clothes. <\/p>\n

Ms. Lee explains that if curvy women are employed to showcase clothes and market accessories, people would end up fawning over their bodies rather than the items.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, beauty is abundant in everyone, and we should all strive to be people who do not conform to unrealistic and human-defined beauty standards. Imagine what the world would look like if we all had one body type, one skin color, one hair color, or even the same facial features. It would be a very boring, drab place with no tasteful diversity. This means that everybody type matters, and women can hold their heads high and love themselves to bits because we are all perfect in our own way.
\n