Talk:Female body shape/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

We need more on:

• actual data on body shape in various countries, with references
• references to studies of male, female, and general cultural, ideals and preferences for female body shape
  • This article references a UTexas study of waist-to-hip ratio vis-a-vis attraction. Not exactly a cultural study, but may be relevant. --Iskunk 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• gender politics of female body shape, with references

Also, the corresponding article on male body shape needs to be written.

-- The Anome 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Added/modified:

• New "Shape" section, with 5 sub-sections using technical specifics (needs more citation)
• The older subsections were moved to a new "Society" section
• New section could use a lot of clean-up (spelling, grammar, etc...)
• Old section could use a little better consistency (talk about western media in its own subsection under Society)

-- Professor Voluptuary 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Male Body Shape

How come there is no entry for Male Body Shape. I think it would be an equally interesting subject.

What the fuck?

What fat chick wrote this article? The majority of it seems to be a bunch of bollocks about how men prefer bigger women.

Contradictions

"The pear shape has a waist that is around 110% (10% larger) in circumference, possibly more, than the chest, while the waist is still no less than 75% (25% less) than the chest."

Is the waist 25% less or 10% larger than the chest? Other paragraphs in the sections have the same problem. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was using "waist" to describe both "waist" and "hips," and not differentiating, in many paragraphs under this section. I have re-edited and fixed the issue. I will also check for my consistency in other sections as well. Thank you for seeing this! -- User:Professor Voluptuary 15:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Society: NPOV

The society section is hardly NPOV, overemphasizes the voluptuous shape, and contrasts voluptuous with anorectic, hereby ignoring the more common "normal" shape inbetween. The definition of voluptuous implicitly used in this section hardly matches the definition given in the opening paragraph (I don't think Angelina Jolie would appreciate being called Rubenesque). Fram 11:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Beautiful Woman merge

I support the propsed merge. The specific "Big Beautiful Woman" internet subculture seems pretty minor, while the phenomenon of general preference for a certain body size should be encyclopedically treated here.--Pharos 21:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the term should stand as is. Since it is precisely a subculture with a distinct characteristic, it needs to stand out to be noticeable.

• Absolutely no merge - "Big" is not a "shape". It is a size. There are BBWs of all shapes (apple, pear, etc.) As far as I know - there is no international culture associated with the pear-shaped, appled-shaped, etc. And if there is - they should have a page, too. While the article is seriously flawed at the moment, the term BBW has a life of it's own - it's not even a single culture - There are elements of it in fashion, the size positive movement, social culture, and yes - even porn. while a body shape article should REFERENCE a BBW article, and perhaps even vice-versa - they are by no means the same thing. Khigh 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I also disagree with a merge. Why? Well, I kept hearing the term BBW online, looking it up in google, and lo and behold I found a wikipedia article on it. But I did not know what BBW stood for before I opened this article, and now I know! But I would have never looked up "female form." There should be a link to female form, but this article should stay. Karmak

After the merge, the article would still exist as a redirect to this one, so a search for BBW would still get you here. So this is not a reason to keep the article BBW (different content and meaning from this article, on the other hand, is of course a valid reason to keep BBW). The merge was mainly proposed because at that time, the "female body shape" article was only a promotion of BBW, instead of a neutral, encyclopedic overview of all female body shapes. One section of it is still tagged (NPOV) for that reason. Fram 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The merge would simply take away from the definition of "BBW". We are talking about an encyclopedia, perhaps the largest on earth. If someone needed to know what the definition of BBW was, I would not look under "Female body shape"!

• I removed the merge proposal. There was no credible reasoning or support for it Khigh 16:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The "36C-24-36" paragraph does not make sense

"Although the pair of Mammary Glands (breasts) as well as the Buttocks (rear) are key attributes in the female form, and vary widely, they do not define these inflection points. E.g., the chest measurement is done not around the breasts, possibly under them (although some sensationalistic measuresments might use otherwise). Although the buttock is rarely measured, it is common to measure the cup size of the Mammary Glands and append it to the chest dimension. For example, in the United States, a C cup bust on a woman with 36-24-36 dimensions may be written as 36C-24-36."

"the chest measurement is done not around the breasts" - yes it is. There is no way a woman with a 36" under-bust would have a 24" waist. "Although the buttock is rarely measured" - again, yes it is. When speaking of body measurements, "hip" means the largest part of the buttocks, not the pelvic girdle as many people believe.

Although under-bust (ribcage) is often measured as well, it is usually around 2-3" bigger than the waist, so a woman with a 24" waist would probably have a ribcage measuring about 27". The 36 must refer to the fullest part of the bust, not the chest as implied in the article. I have seen models measurements given with bra size instead of bust measurement, but for a 36-24-36 figure, it would probably be 28FF-24-36, not 36C-24-36

Angelina Jolie

Under the article Women's Body Shapes you have a section entitled 'Feminism and Body Shape' and there you identify Ms. A. Jolie as a curvy woman. I agree that this is generally accepted in pop culture, but would like to note that according to the specifications of your article, Ms. Jolie's body shape is in fact not traditionally curvy. The top of her body is a lot larger than her narrow 32 inch hips and aside from an ample chest her frame is quite gangly and thin. I think that she is taken to be curvy simply because she has an ample chest, which both reflects the modern western perception of what counts as 'desirably full' and how that differs from the very standards we have said to measure such things. Okie dokie that's all I have to say. You should check out Ms. Jolie's measurements, I'm right about this. -comment posted on the help desk by User:24.33.28.67

Apparently, the reference to dear old Angelina have been removed. -Pgan002 07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasons?

Could someone state the biological reason for female body shape? Women body sahpe differs because of a variety of reasons than men I have heard ... and mabey it would be good for the article. UMKC 14:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The article now answers that question, saying that it depends on where in the body fat is deposited. But I would suspect that it also has to do with bone structure. So I have taken the liberty to change "depends on where in the body fat builds up" to "depends partly on where fat builds up in the body". -Pgan002 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Serious problems with article

I just stumbled across this article, and it has motivated me to make an account just so I can give a few suggestions. First, when has "mammary glands" ever been a proper or PC term for breasts? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that term feels demeaning to me as a woman. Second, the first measurement in the xx-xx-xx style is band size from a bra measurement. It's my understanding that you measure around the ribcage, just below the breasts, then add 4 or 5 inches. (Also, I agree with the above commenter that the hip measurement is made around the fullest part of the buttocks.) Third, why are the pear/apple/hourglass descriptions in the article twice? Fourth, in the "American Dress Sizing" section, there is no category listed for "normal" women. I hope the author realizes that "petite" refers mainly to height, not size. (Example: as a 5'10" size 6, I don't fit in any of your categories.) In my opinion, this article needs a complete overhaul. Unfortunately, I don't have the time. Coppelia 17:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on your comments. When I get a chance, I'll try and write up what I describe, along with other changes. (1) Breasts are the common term, and should be the primary way to which they are referred. Mammary Glands should probably be mentioned as a parenthetical, being the scientific/physiological term for them. (2) Clothing pattern companies, such as Simplicity and McCall's, have the bust measurement as around the fullest part of the bust. This is the first number in the xx-xx-xx. Bra size (the under-bust measurement plus 5, rounded up to the nearest even number) should not be use for the measurement. The hip measurement is around the fullest part of the buttocks, whether at or above them, and the waist is the thinest part between the hips and the bust. A picture here would be helpful. (3) That should be cleaned up and arranged better. (4) American Dress Sizing needs a reference (I've never heard of BBW sizing before), and a section for Misses ("normal"). EEPiccolo 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-write suggestions

Before my radical additions months ago, this article was limited and did not detail in the least bit the wide range of differences in the female shape. It focused way too much on extremes, some of which I left in the later portions of the article (I created a new section for) and left for others to clean up. In other words, I'm all for major changes in uniformity -- especially since I only "inserted" a new section, and attempted to clean up any existing verbage very little.

As far as addressing the errors in the inflection points and other, related commentary, I'm completely open to such. I tried to address a few, major errors made in my original edit, but there is probably some additional "tiddying up" to do.

As far as using Angelina Jolie as an example, she should be used as an example of a hourglass that is proportionally small. Remember, hourglass is not related in the least bit to full figured -- which is the difference between shape and proportion. In fact, many actresses are typically straight-shaped, hence why they can fit in a size 2 at 32" dimensions. When a woman is hourglass shaped, for the same weight, it can be more difficult -- especially if she has dimensions that are more extreme like 32/34-20-32/34 or similarly.

User:Professor_Voluptuary 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reads like an essay - needs cleanup

I added the essay-entry template: "The current version of the article or section is written like an essay." The article seems to consist largely of the opinions/ideas of its contributors, rather than objective, NPOV, scholarly material appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Please clean up or delete this article. -- 201.50.126.220 02:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support deleting it. The subject is not encyclopedic. mglg_(talk) 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability requirements, since scientific articles have been published about it. Could you qualify your claim? -Pgan002 08:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up, and replaced the Essay notice with an Expert notice. Expert knowledge is needed to correct inaccuracies, add references and remove weasel and ambiguous phrases. -Pgan002 08:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The scientific articles cited (directly or indirectly) are about (a) the effect of socio-cultural factors on the risk of developing anorexia, (b) health effects of hip fat, and (c) cues to attraction. These could be valid article subjects. The current article, however, purports to be about the female body shape itself and its subtypes, which is not to my knowledge a field of scientific inquiry, nor should it be. The article prominently attempts to categorize possible female body shapes into certain "combinatorial structures" based on enumerated "inflection points"; that material was added as a block by User:Professor Voluptuary on June 22, 2006 [1] and represents his personal opinion. Professor Voluptuary's user page states that it is his habit to "educate his fellow male peers, often involuntarily, on his view of the ideal, female form". I don't believe Professor Voluptuary's opinion, or anybody else's, about body types to be encyclopedic. If there is salvageable material in this article it should be moved to appropriate other articles, and the article deleted. Alternatively, the article could be refocused on an encyclopedic subject and renamed. --mglg_(talk) 22:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Expert needed

After I cleaned up the article style and tightened the prose, I replaced the Essay message at the top with an Expert message. Adding references, and removing inaccuracies and weasel phrases requires expert knowledge. -Pgan002 08:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How to fit in content about voluptuous bodies?

Currently, the discussions of voluptuous bodies,and related content, do not fit in well into the rest of the article. This includes the "Fertility" and "Sexual attractiveness" sections, and to a lesser extent "Feminism and boy shape" and "Anorexia etc.". Either the content should be put under a section "Voluptuous bodies and societal impact" or something like that, or the subsections should be expanded to deal with other body types besides voluptuous, such as slim. I guess that voluptuousness (as well as obesity) have a special importance; that favors the first option, but the importance should be explained in an intro. -Pgan002

Suggested improvement

I suggest pictures of women of various figures be interspersed throughout this article, as a visual example of the figures described. James Callahan 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill/lol 17:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Go from top to bottom in order of most desirable to least... then you can just stop scrolling when you're satisfied.

I wish this article didn't exist

This is the Internet though, so it does. Yay. Can't AFD it either because the result would be an overwhelming keep. At least somebody write an article about the male body shape just to balance things a bit? - ∅ (∅), 03:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. What, exactly, is the purpose of this article in an encyclopedia? Someone, please enlighten me as to what this has to do with anything??? CelticLabyrinth 03:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you think I should AFD it then? :-P - ∅ (∅), 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Added {{unencyclopedic}} - ∅ (∅), 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion

This article is obviously a magnet for OR and nonsense and, as written, seems hopeless. But I disagree, while the article needs a lot of work, I believe this is a perfectly valid topic for an encyclopedia. Without normative judgment, I think anyone can agree that female body shape is something that has quite a bit of importance to many people. Now, possibly there are targets for a merge, but I see a handful of good references at the bottom of this article, and I believe we can turn this into a respectable article. --JayHenry 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And actually, I'm curious about how, exactly, this topic is "unencyclopedic." The article is of very poor quality, but the unencyclopedic template explicitly says that's not a reason for using the template. So I'm trying to understand why this is unencyclopedic. --JayHenry 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't belive that the information in the article is unencyclopedic, but the overall article is bad. I'd instead suggest a merge into Human figure, which needs all the help it can get! --AliceJMarkham 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, provided there will be a section on the male body shape as well. The internets are not just for men. Deal. :P - ∅ (∅), 09:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome to create a section on men. :) More realistically, each section of the article could cover male and female. How muscular females tend towards a more masculine shape, how anorexics of both sexes tend towards a common skeletal shape, how obesity in both leads to fat distributed everywhere such that the distribution is the same for both males and females, etc.
• Someone want to formally propose a merge? --AliceJMarkham 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I totally have no problem with an article on men. You seem to be suggesting that there is inherent sexism in this article. I just totally disagree. An article about the shape of the female or the male body, how they are portrayed in media, how different body types are defined, and yes, how potential sexual partners react to different shapes, is a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia. It's a topic that is frequently written about, hence we have good sources. (And if you want to write the corresponding material on men I'd even volunteer to help!) I still see the value in having two companion articles on male and female body shapes -- even obesity, I believe, has different patterns of distribution in men and women, and I'm guessing that's been studied. --JayHenry 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• As I see it, the various concepts such as the various points on the body where measurements occur (certainly not just the 3 mentioned in this article), variations within and between genders, consideration of transgender issues such as the body shape of a person who reached adulthood with a fully developed male skeleton before beginning hormone treatment that causes redistribution of fat, etc would be more effectively covered within one article. Such an article would have connections to anthropometry, Body fat percentage, Body Mass Index and numerous other existing articles. I suspect that keeping 2 separate articles for male and female might not achieve the same level of coverage and article quality that a single article might. 2 separate articles would both need to explain many of the same concepts as each other. --AliceJMarkham 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a good article by itself, which has more leaned towards costumes/dress tailering. give some time to it to improve. i oppose both deletion and merge— vinay 08:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite its weaknesses, this article should be kept and improved. 68.101.128.40 20:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Combinatorial structures

I've removed a paragraph that is not supported by its reference, like so much in this article:

"A recent British study of over 6,000 women found that over 46% were Rectangle, over 20% Pear, under 14% Apple, and under 9% Hourglass. These numbers may not be typical of other regions in the world, but seem to reflect well female shapes in western society."

The reference is a report of a US not British study and implictly excludes other countries. The designations of "Apple", "Pear" etc are only loosely defined in this report and may not necessarily relate closely to the (unreferenced) definitions given earlier in this section. andy 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)