May 12, 2004

DUH?:

Barbie has the perfect body, biologically speaking (ROWAN HOOPER, 5/13/04, Japan Times)

The question is, do men prefer the hourglass, Barbie body shape for cultural reasons (whatever they are) or is there an evolutionary basis for the preference?

It might irritate upholders of political correctness, but last week Polish scientists showed that women with large breasts and a small waist have higher fertility than women of other shapes. In other words, there may be a biological, evolutionary basis for the preference for the Barbie figure. We might still not like it, but it is not (just) a result of stereotyping and objectification.

A team led by Grazyna Jasienska, at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, measured 119 Polish women aged between 24 and 37. The team measured the women's breast-to-underbreast ratio and waist-to-hip ratio. A high breast-to-underbreast ratio indicates that the woman has large breasts, and a low waist-to-hip ratio indicates a small waist.

The researchers found that women with both large breasts and a small waist had on average 26 percent more 17-b-estradiol in their blood (measured daily across the whole of the menstrual cycle) and 37 percent higher estradiol mid-cycle. Such women also had more progesterone than women in the other three categories.

The larger amount of these female hormones means that the women with large breasts and a small waist would be about three times more likely to get pregnant than women of other shapes. This qualifies the preference for that body shape as an evolutionary adaptation.

Evolutionary biologists say that something is adaptive if it contributes to greater reproductive success. So if men prefer women with large breasts and a small waist and this means they have more children, then we can conclude that the preference may have arisen for biological, evolutionary reasons.


You'd hardly think it would need to be pointed out that such women diverge the farthest from the male body type and are therefore the most feminine.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 12, 2004 11:33 PM
Comments

'... such women diverge the farthest from the male body type ...'

You talkin' about me, Parton-er? sez the gal from Tennessee.

Posted by: old maltese at May 13, 2004 12:19 AM

Isn't this post just begging for a comment?

Posted by: jsmith at May 13, 2004 12:21 AM

Despite her qualifying body type, Barbie's smooth plastic surfaces around her hinged hip areas make her an extremely low candidate for future pregnancies.

Posted by: John at May 13, 2004 12:47 AM

I'm still waiting for Mattel or some other progressive looking (multinational, billion-dollar-a-year) "toy" company unencumbered by the constraints of the ideal feminine, to come out with the "Botero Barbie."

Posted by: Barry Meislin at May 13, 2004 2:11 AM

Maybe good-looking chicks just have more sex and get pregtant more often.

Posted by: Amos at May 13, 2004 4:54 AM

Interesting theory, but I'm not sure how generally applicable it is. A lot of the Latino women who live here locally are on the squat, indeed dumpy, side, at least as seen through North American eyes, and _they_ don't seem to have had any problem attracting mates, judging from the numbers of children seen in close proximity to them.

Posted by: Joe at May 13, 2004 5:34 AM

Amos:

Yes, but why is that considered "good-looking"?

Posted by: Brit at May 13, 2004 6:01 AM

Brit:

Sometimes you scientific types just have to accept that the heart has its own reasons. And not just the heart.

Posted by: Peter B at May 13, 2004 8:17 AM

Of course humans have not always had such
nutrition as we have now, so in a more feast/famine cyclical environment body type
differences are probably much more obvious.

Posted by: J.H. at May 13, 2004 8:30 AM

No wonderbras back then, either.

Posted by: Brit at May 13, 2004 8:51 AM

Brit:

Homophobia.

Posted by: oj at May 13, 2004 8:58 AM

Until recently, about the only way a fertile woman could fail to conceive was to adopt a religious vocation.

The number of conceptions was probably driven more by economics than figure. See Ireland.

It should be noted that large bust/narrow waist, while it may be good for making babies, is not why Barbie is an icon.

Barbie is an icon because she has the proportions of a voluptuous woman from the waist up and of an 11-year-old girl from the waist down.

Her leg:height ratio is not womanly at all.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 13, 2004 5:38 PM

Harry:

Gotta hand it to you. You have a very eclectic range of interests.

Posted by: Peter B at May 14, 2004 6:56 AM

I'd love to give you the reference, Peter, but I don't have it. The idea is not original with me, though.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 14, 2004 3:23 PM
« NO MORE BILL NYE FOR HER: | Main | ONE LEGISLATIVE VICTORY AFTER ANOTHER: »