Talk:Female body shape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Why so many paintings and so few photographs?[edit]

I understand that using paintings gives the page a less pornographic feel, but I am opposed to their almost exclusive use here, because paintings will necessarily be an artist's idealized depiction of the female body and may not accurately represent its real-life appearance. Also, it feels puritanical. I move to find tasteful nude or near-nude photographs of the female body to use in this article. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm back. Why are we now citing Rubens as an example of real tastes in the Baroque era? His paintings were not indicative of the norm. The proportions with which he painted women were much heavier than what his contemporaries painted, and he also drew strange and unlikely features on women, like massive bodybuilder arms and legs. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Female Body Shape vs Male Body Shape[edit]

There is no corresponding article on 'Male body shape' so why do we have an article on Female Body Shape? Should either have both or neither. I also contest the usefulness of this article, as it is all over the place. veracity-or-mendacity (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Propose Merge with Human Body Shape article. JohnWycliff (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As much as I find the bodyshape obsession disagreeable, there is much material in both pop journalism and academia dealing with female body shape, body shape obsession, and societal implications of it. It's not Wikipedia's job to police things to our liking or our idea of fairness. BoosterBronze (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that an article is required on Male Body Shape then feel free to make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is entirely pointless. If it were essentially dealing with the female body in art, culture, society etc. (as others have suggested), it would make sense, but as it is just a collection of biological facts and figures which are available in other articles, it is an unnecessary addition to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.178.120 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all the biological facts are found on other pages mainly (body shape)so I would agree with a merge with Body shape. If this article contained new information on the pop culture, art culture, symbolism, sexism etc of the female body it would be worthwhile having this article. At the moment this clearly fails WP:POV as for example, there is nothing from the point of view of feminists in particularly the objectification and idealization obsesseions, how it is used in media, there is nothing about freudians who would say that male obsessions of the female body shape stems from their own mothers body shape, or even how some women make money with it. 188.223.18.19 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a (long) article on female body shape and no article at all about male body shape is frankly embarrassing. Either merge this into Human Body Shape or make a male equivalent. (Also, I'd be *fascinated* to know how much of this article was written by men.) Zarkonnen 10:23, 24 June 2012

This is appalling. As true of a reflection of reality as it may be, Wikipedia shouldn't follow suit in objectifying women's bodies. Why are women a subcategory when female is the original/generic sex from a scientific standpoint anyway? If we renamed the page "Female figure', then perhaps it would be less awkward. 76.20.62.197 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has always been a load of crap; I wonder why I've bothered editing it so much over the years. I agree that it's useless and by definition subjective. It belongs more in Cosmo than in an encyclopedia. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in BWH Measurement section[edit]

I've noticed a mistake in the BWH measurement section. The article states that someone who measures 36A-25-38 and someone who measures 36C-25-38 both have 36" busts. This is incorrect. Someone who measures 36A has a 37" inch bust and someone who measures 36C has a 39" bust. I really can't figure out how to reword the section, though.

Fixed. 36A, 34C, both 37" bust. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "36" in a 36A bra indicates a 32-inch approximate rib cage measurement. When measuring for a bra, you add 4" to the actual measurement (defaulting to the tighter band if you are in-between), and, every inch above the calculated number increases the cup size, so, a 36A would have a rib cage of about 32" with a bust measurement of 37". But, I'm having trouble wording it straightforwardly rather than a correction to the misinformation. A straightforward statement with the misinformation removed would be better, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.37.123 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be late with this, which may explain why I feel there is no need to change the current description. The band size is NOT the under-bust circumference (with or without an offset). The band size is the circumference actually at the bust line behind the breasts. The article's current use of "rib cage" is close enough. The various methods (and there are many) involving, under-bust, offsets, over-bust, etc. are all just methods of "estimating" the actually required dimension, since the breasts block a direct measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinarob1993 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 4 inches to the underbust-measurement to find the band size usually results in an ill-fitting bra. Unfortunately the +4-method is still widely used, mostly by companies who want to fit as many women as possible into a small matrix of sizes. www.reddit.com/abrathatfits 212.186.181.3 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inflection points[edit]

I dispute this term. The page itself links to the mathematical concept of an inflection point, at which the curvature is changing its sign. The BWH are merely the local extrema of the shape. There are only two inflection points per-se, and they are basically between these three points, but the actual placement is quite irrelevant. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never particularly liked the term "inflection point" in this article but hadn't found a suitable alternative. I agree with your suggestion that local extrema is probably a correct term, even though I don't really like that term per se. I'd probably be inclined to describe them as [local extrema|key measurements] or similar. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, inflection points is incorrect. We're dealing with two maxima (bust and hips) and one maxima/minima (waist, would be a minima for the hourglass shape and a maxima for a fat woman). Proxy616 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to avoid use of incorrect 'inflection point'. - Rod57 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has changed it back. I'm not sure how to revert to your wording here without messing up all the stuff added since, but I agree 'inflection point' is entirely, completely wrong and should be changed.Baron ridiculous (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism anyone?[edit]

This article reeks of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.141.160 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment of variability in the figures of human females is not inherently sexist; unless you feel that the article has specific NPOV issues that need to be addressed, your comment is entirely worthless. 64.211.50.218 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Tiktok[reply]

It is not what the content says but the mere existence of this page. If there is already a page for human body shape (which covers both males and females), one specifically for females is redundant and only serves to make women feel offended. If so many women are apparently offended, I would say it is at least a little sexist.Jjudychu (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, almost all the pictures are of paintings by men. Yet, there is very little about the cultural stuff, as mentioned in all those "this page is useless" comments. The one photo looks like old old old school pornography and the only other on is a diagram. How come there are no people just standing normally like... normal people.Jjudychu (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masculine Female Shapes[edit]

In the "Female Shapes" section, both "Apple" and "Banana" shapes are described as "More Masculine." Later, a study shows that 46% of women are banana and 14% are apple. If 60% of women are "more masculine" perhaps that isn't the right term. Even if that were not the case, I think that terminology seems to imply that the other two body types are better/more attractive, which I don't think we want to do. Kjsharke (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher estrogen leads to a more hourglass- or pear-shaped figure. Higher testosterone leads to accumulation of body fat in the abdomen and less pronouncement of hips (apple and banana shapes). Hence, yes, those are more masculine. It's also why hourglass shapes are indeed considered more attractive in real life. Men seek high-estrogen women because it signifies (instinctually, of course) higher fertility. I keep telling everyone that Wikipedia is not a place for sugarcoated PC demagoguery, but no one listens, LOL... Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your terminology is taken at face value as correct, then one can only conclude that the terms masculine and feminine are themselves flawed; as the majority of women have a "masculine" shape. Perhaps this needs addressing on the pages for those terms? ... I went to those pages. Ineed, the definition of both is not considered scientific: "Cultural standards vary a great deal on what is considered feminine." So you are both correct. Yes, those shapes may be considered more masculine and yes there's a problem with using a societal norm to solely define women's body shapes. 76.182.83.46 (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we need to consider that this study was not a scientific study, but rather an article published in JTATM based on the SizeUSA results. The article is here: http://faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1345758958.758%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A9.pdf . 213.105.76.33 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Tom are October 21 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.25.98 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo removal[edit]

I've restored the photo, which was removed with the comment 'nudity unnecessary'. I think past precedent and in particular this recent conversation are a pretty clear consensus for its retention. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you guys are still reverting each other back & forth : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Although I think the Image in question does little for the Article, labeling it "pornographic and unattractive" or "nudity unnecessary!" are not valid arguments to remove it. See WP:NOTCENSORED & Wikipedia:Options to not see an image -- GateKeeper(X) @ 00:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worst you could do for this article is censor art which gives the reader a great example of body type. To use a clothed model would be like having a picture of a face with sunglasses in an article about eyeballs. 75.142.234.137 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about picture on Female body shape[edit]

This section was copied here from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests by GateKeeperX. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Answered
 – Jezhotwells (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the image used on the article Female body shape constitutes pornography. My teenage children have browsed this website as an educational tool and I do not wish them to encounter such images. The image in question can be found around halfway down the page, captioned "Real woman demonstrating the hourglass body shape". Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedfather (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia is not censored. Crafty (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't see why it must be a naked women. This seems to me as though it is peddling pornography for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedfather (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that a picture of a clothed woman will not demonstrate body shape as clearly as a naked one. That's why every woman pictured in that article (not just the one you are for some reason focusing on) is naked. Algebraist 22:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I would suggest that the shape of the female body is most accurately illustrated by showing a woman without her clothes. I would respectfully submit that removing that image because you (concernedfather) or anyone else objects on the moral grounds would be contrary to Wikipedia policy. Discussion should focus on why the image is not suited to that particular article. You (concernedfather) might wish to pursue this matter on the article talk page. Crafty (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article on pornography, the images on the Female body shape page do not constitute pornography, because they are not a "...depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer." The article on nude photography also distinguishes nudity from erotic nudity:

Nude photography is a style of art photography which depicts the nude human body as a study. Nude photography should be distinguished from erotic photography, which has a sexually suggestive component.

It is only by means of a preconception that "nude is lewd" that the images on the page can be seen as pornographic. The images on the page illustrate the female form in a sensual, not sexual, way. We somehow manage when we see our naked pets in greater detail around the house and we understand their excretory needs. These images, showing less than the family dog does, show us more about ourselves. The images are educational; they are not pornography catering to a prurient interest. Newportm (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want your children to encounter pictures of naked women then keep them locked in dungeon for the rest of their lives! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The explanations here are a little disingenuous; the reason there's an article on female body shape and none on male body shape; the reason there's a photograph of a nude woman but none of a nude man on human body shape, and the reason WIkipedia's editors chose the particular photo under discussion are all the same, and is an open secret: we're on the Internet, and a lot of hormonally activated teenage boys who might not get to see real nude women edit here. They edit what interests them, and that's nude girls. The fact is, that the photo is certainly not pornographic, but it certainly is there at least partially for titillation, even if some care to think otherwise. But the photo won't be removed: the community here likes these pictures. Viewing the photo won't have much of an effect on your children, though I understand wanting to protect them from her sagginess. - Nunh-huh 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : Generally the goal of scholarly or scientific work is to show reality as explicitly, starkly, and clearly as possible in order for everyone to understand and benefit. I've personally never understood the need for various types of concealment but if education is the goal, explicit is the most direct route. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your concern about your children viewing images of nude woman seems based on the assumption that this would cause some harm to them, however no scientific studies have shown that viewing images (sexually explicit or otherwise) causes "harm." If you're concerned, as I suspect, that it would cause your children to ask you uncomfortable questions, perhaps you should look inside yourself to see why this is so rather than attempt to publicly resolve a personal issue. Lexlex (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OP said something about educational purposes and gave no indication of specific issues beyond the uninformative label "pornography" and Ed Meese isn't returning my e-mails. While historically many taboos have existed around sex, body fluids, or corpse dissection, educational purpose AFAIK is synonymuous with explicit and clear. Presumably this goal is primary before any possible hazards- corpses and body fluilds are not always safe but I'm not sure what hazards exist with information. Generally it is best to be explicit about your fears and not assume we are mind readers. In short, what are you worried about and what limits do you wish to place on education and learning ? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quality of nude photo[edit]

I do not object to the idea of a nude photo demonstrating an hourglass shape but I think the particular photo on display should be replaced. The fact that the model's legs are crossed drastically obscures her shape. Moreover, were her legs uncrossed, I think we would find that she does not have an especially hourglass-like hip-to-waist ratio. PetiteFadette (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures - is there a decent one available with body hair?[edit]

I notice that all the pictures illustrating this article are of women with a weird absence of body hair. I know this has been conventional in some painting traditions, but this article isn't just about those traditions. I think this article would be more useful if at least one of the pictures featured a woman with something approaching normal levels of body hair. But looking at the article, I see the pictures (other than the abstracted diagrams) have been (tastefully) selected so that they are all classical paintings. Does such a classical painting exist that shows some body hair, since I don't want to disrupt the article? 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Female body shape article[edit]

There are a number of redirects to this article. Per the Principle of least astonishment (WP:REDIRECT#PLA) these terms should be mentioned at the beginning of the article and they are not. I think many of these should be changed and would like to get everybodies input on this before changing them. Here's my suggestions

Does anybody have any input before I update these redirects? - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 07:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I have changed the redirects to those listed above. Anybody is free to change them back if they feel the need. Please keep in mind the Principle of least astonishment from WP:REDIRECT#PLA. Thanks - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 13:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to eating disorder pages[edit]

I think that since this page talks a lot about 'ideal' body image, and because there is already so much pressure on women and girls from the media to have that ideal body even if very few people /do/ have it, there should be links to the Anorexia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa) and the Bulimia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulimia_nervosa). Srjohnst (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to change name of article[edit]

I think that the article should be rename "Female figure", which is probably a more commonly used term. Ewawer (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, to resolve the issue up top. At least we could give it a different name. 76.20.62.197 (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning[edit]

"A low waist-hip ratio has also often been regarded as an indicator of attractiveness of a woman, but recent research suggests that attractiveness is more correlated to body mass index than waist-hip ratio, contrary to previous belief.[10][11] "

Recent "research" is subjective; there is no such thing as objective "attractiveness". Thus the people studied in this "research" reflect their own cultural bias and are as much a sign of the times as any other time. Not only is an appeal to the general idea of "research", an appeal to authority, it goes so far as to say that it is a matter of fact contrary to all other times--we've found out the truth on "attractiveness" have we? It implies that we're smarter than prior generations thus sounding as silly as other generations who thought this about themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.183.148 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sagging breasts[edit]

i understand that the sagging of breasts is due to a lack of mammary glands, and that there is evidence that wearing a bra does not help reduce it. in any case there is no citation for the sagging section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.250.210 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widest Hip Point VS Crotch Height[edit]

To me personally an attractive female body shape has the Widest Hip Point (WHP) situated at or below the Crotch Height (CH). If the WHP is situated higher than the CH, the impression of the body tends to become apple shape, even if the Waste to Hips Ratio (WHR) is relatively low. Anyone concur? Any scientific research underpinning this statement? --Tavernsenses (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general article on women's body shapes, not an analysis of what individual men might find attractive. How women are perceived by others is not relevant to a discussion of what women actually are.
Can you imagine if every article about aspects of maleness had a section on whether women find these qualities attractive? What a person finds appealing in another individual is a matter of personal taste and varies according to culture plus it just is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Female body shape → Woman body shape – "Female" is not a good idea, because the article deals exclusively with human females. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all human females are women. Powers T 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unnecessary. --MrBoire (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRECISION thinks that it is necessary. More proposals? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:PRECISION calls for titles only as precise as necessary. Other animals' shapes are not called "female body shape" out of context. —  AjaxSmack  17:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        False. "Body shape" is not an uncommon idiom in zoology. You may confirm its existence with a Google search. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to before I made my previous comments. Of the first 200 Google hits, only two are not for human body shape. One is for a guitar body shape and the other for aerodynamic body shape; none are for animal body shape. —  AjaxSmack  00:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Human female body shape; current name shows WP:Systematic bias -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of systemic bias? I imagine the non-human Wikipedia readership is quite low and I've yet to see complaints. —  AjaxSmack  17:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why are you so sure that a human never has an interest to the shape of a horse or a goat? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said nothing of the sort. But the articles on horse and goat are the place where users would seek such info; not an article on female body shape. —  AjaxSmack  00:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If to apply AjaxSmack's logic consistently, then the article "female" should be a place where to seek information about human females. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • My arguments here are based on neither logic nor consistency. They are based on the overwhelming common usage of "female body shape" to refer to humans on the one hand and the fact that "woman body shape" is barely English on the other. —  AjaxSmack  01:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am surprised that you think sexual dimorphism of non-humans isn't of interest to people. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arrangement of images[edit]

For the second time now on this article, User:Beyond My Ken has reverted my change in the arrangement of images, with the edit summary of "better before". Please fill me in on why it was "better before", and why should Duval's Venus not be included in the article? It demonstrates the body shape of a human female just as well as the other images. If there is a good reason why, please let me know. Lt. Waaxe (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your images are much much too large - and this is coming from someone who generally makes images larger than many people on Wikipedia do - they totally overwhelm the text. I also don't see the need for two different versions of "The Birth of Venus", especially since the two are so similar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Stacking three images vertically—all of them late-19th-century French paintings depicting nudes of roughly similar physique in essentially the same pose—makes for a dull layout and adds little to the article. Ewulp (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I apologize, I have font set pretty small on my computer so images might look smaller for me than most people. Lt. Waaxe (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity in Images?[edit]

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for having realistic body images illustrating this Wikipedia article instead of plastic surgery-enhanced, porno star bodies. It's depressing when you read about even teenagers getting breast augmentations. My only complaint is that all of your images are of white women. The article doesn't even mentions that women of different ethnicities tend to have different body types. I think it would really enhance this piece if a consideration of this could be included and, at the least, have some of the images be of women of color. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken, so I'll just point out that one of the reasons for all the women being white is that older European art works were used for most of the images. I'll look around to see how some diversity can be added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really curious about the use of "women" instead of "female". Is there room to have conversations about trans inclusivity? Dtiegs (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate references[edit]

Hi, I added this because the information given was based on a newspaper article. The actual article that the body shapes were based upon, were from a study done on 8 August 2004 (http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/2577), which sorted data from various sets of data based on a three-dimensional scanner according to the primitive shape. There were 9 shapes which the software, which used a method known as Female Figure Identification, do not include anything such as "banana" or any other such types.

The section should be removed or re-written, as at the moment it is inaccurate.

213.105.76.33 (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which section is it that is inaccurate? I have read the article pointed to above and tried to relate it to this article without success. I agree that the pointed article is interesting and may merit a mention here, but not that it contradicts anything here. Enthusiast (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what the OP actually wrote, Ewawer? The word "banana" is not used in either the newspaper nor the original study. Only apple and pear are used. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better lead pic[edit]

The current lead pic, a detail from The Birth of Venus, is not appropriate to start an article about body shape. This isn't female body shape in Western art, so we should have something far more neutral. The painted Venus representation is contorted by the luscious pose which pretty much obscures the basic body shape. It's more representative of sexual objectification than anything else.

Any suggestions?

Peter Isotalo 23:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most or all of the paintings should go, and the aim should be to have something more like a science textbook. To this end, Human body has a lead photograph of a man and a woman. We could reuse the pioneer drawing used in body shape, or, I noticed that [6] was just uploaded this month - not right for this article, but maybe we could request something from the illustrator.Dialectric (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Redirect/Merge/Delete[edit]

Requesting to blank this article and redirect to Body Shape in lieu of deletion. This article is needlessly gendered, as there is already a Body Shape article. The majority of the content of this article can be found in Body Shape, Body Image, Physical Attractiveness, Bust/waist/hip_measurements and Model (people). Taking away the redundant information, what remains is poorly sourced, lacking neutrality, and heavily biased by a western white male perspective. The similar articles listed above are higher rated within their respective wiki projects, are better sourced, more neutral, and more cohesive. The titles for those articles are more specific and appropriate to the topics covered in Female Body Shape. If there is anything here worth preserving it can be easily merged into Body Shape or one of the other articles mentioned above. --Pgillhaus (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Measurements in "Dimensions"[edit]

In the article it says:

"For example, though the measurements are not consistently applied, a woman with a bra size of 36B has a rib cage of 32 inches in circumference and a bust measure of 38 inches; a woman with a bra size 34C has a rib cage of 30 inches around, but a smaller bust measure of 37 inches[citation needed]"

A person with a 36B will have an underbust measurement of 36 inches with a bust of 38 inches. A person who is size 34C will have a underbust measurement of 34 with a 37 inch bust. I don't now what sizing guide whoever wrote this was referencing (they didn't include a source), but it is extremely inaccurate or outdated. Your band size is simply your underbust (rounded to the nearest even number), and your cup size is the difference between your bust and your under bust (1 inch A, 2 inch B...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.159.18 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Female body shape. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Female shapes[edit]

The whole section is based on 3 citations: one from a newspaper pop journalism piece (citing some obscure fashion study by the North Carolina State University) the same North Carolina State University study and a masters thesis (Effects of Body Shape on Body Cathexis and Dress Shape Preferences of Female Consumers: A Balancing Perspective) which only cites the fashion industry standards.

It seems to me that the whole female shapes subsection is ill-conceived, touting the female shape classification as some sort of academic or scientific taxonomy (much like the pop media article cited) instead of a tool of the fashion industry.

I have renamed the section to "Female Shapes in the Fashion Industry" until someone comes up with a more academic classification stemming from the Orthopaedics literature or something more scientific. further, I also rewrote the section to convey with more accuracy the nature of the studies cited. Dryfee (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Female body shape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Female body shape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waist to Hip ratio error[edit]

I believe that Sophia Loren and Venus de Milo being described as a .7 W-H ratio is in error. Venus de Milo has no official measurements. [1] Sophia Loren measures at 38-24-28 which would put her as a .6 W-H ratio [2] Perhaps these icons of beauty would be better replaced by ones that fall in the .7 W-H ratio the sentence is describing. Isaacmoore311 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/100-years-ago-american-women-competed-in-serious-venus-de-milo-lookalike-contests
  2. ^ http://www.bodymeasurements.org/sophia-loren/

Body Type Science and Female Body Shape[edit]

As per Wikipedia:External links

"Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

We would like this added:


The growing field of Body Type Science* utilizes the scientific variables of genetics, vertebrae, muscle/muscle mass, and skinny fat (cellulite, thin fat, loose skin, saggy skin, normal weight obesity) to more accurately identify female body shape in relation to diet, exercise, metabolism, BMR, BMI, and lifestyle to better understand health as a whole.

Fellow One Research's Body Type Science offers the ONLY scientific body types in existence (The Four Body Types = Standard Body Type One/BT1, Body Type Two/BT2, Body Type Three/BT3, and Body Type Four/BT4)

Body Type Science* - Scientific Research Data:


Marcnelson11 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Talk:Body shape MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social perceptions of the ideal woman's body[edit]

The section Female body shape#Social perceptions of the ideal woman's body selects two studies as being relevant to this topic. The first is the Len Kilgore paper, "Anthropometric variance in humans: Assessing Renaissance concepts in modern applications".[1] It is not obvious to me how this paper is relevant, let alone WP:DUE.

Subjects: Nine adult Caucasian males and six adult Caucasian females volunteered to participate in this pilot study. The males averaged 24.2 years of age (± 13.9), the females 31.0 years of age (± 13.9). Male height was 182.4 cm (± 7.3). Female height was 164.2 cm (± 9.6).

I have these concerns

  1. The sample size is tiny, just fifteen in total, of whom just six were women.
  2. All the subjects were Caucasian
  3. The Vitruvian Man is about skeletal proportions, ratio of distance between finger-tips to height. Muscle and fat distribution is of no interest.
  4. Leonardo's objective was to define an artistic canon of body proportions for an idealised male figure. So if it has any validity at all (which I still question), it would be about social perceptions of the ideal man's body.

Is there a convincing argument why it should be retained? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to remove it. Crossroads -talk- 17:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kilgore, Lon (2012). "Anthropometric variance in humans: Assessing Renaissance concepts in modern applications" (PDF). Anthropological Notebooks. 18 (3). Slovene Anthropological Society: 13–23. ISSN 1408-032X.

Lead images: bold, revert, discuss[edit]

Per WP:BRD, I reverted a bold edit by user:Maangaoorugai4u, first because it just dumped an image at random and second because it doesn't seem to usefully illustrate anything (as required by MOS:IMAGES). But it did make me question whether the existing image selection in the lead was a good one: two idealised European women. It seems to me that a simple sculpture in stone or bronze from at least two diverse cultures makes a better choice. So I too have been bold and done just that: if anyone disagrees then of course we revert to status quo ante and discuss. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_body_shape&oldid=1195652507"