Straight Lines

October 21st, 2005

There was a post on Fark today involving scantily clad pictures of Gisele Bundchen. I’ve never been a big fan of her, for several reasons:

1) She looks like a 12 year old boy
2) Catch her from the right angle, she’s got a horseface
3) She’s dating Leonardo DiCrapio

But really, I think farker Quantum Apostrophe said it best:

“No hips. If I put on a bikini, I’d look the same. Why would I want a woman that looks like me? Straight lines are only good in geometry class.”

Seriously, what’s with men who like women without curves? I’ve had friends in the past who were into women like this, and frankly in some of them I’ve suspected latent homosexuality. Now I’m not saying I get down for chubby girls, but how about something besides your breast implants to remind me that you’re a woman?

Clark always said that waist:hip ratio was a solid measure for defining attractiveness in a woman, and I have to agree. The wikipedia entry on the matter specifies an optimal waist:hip ratio of about 0.7. This isn’t too far off from my own supposed ideal of 0.67, derived from the Playboy standard of 36-24-36.

Gisele, by my extremely scientific methods, clocks in at a boyish 0.8 (let’s approximate the body circumference as an ellipse where the long axis is twice the length of the short axis, with the circumference approximated by this method). Monica Belluci on the other hand comes in at a sexy 0.64. Now we’re talking!


Gisele BundchenMonica Bellucci

(Note: If you do a Google search for “gisele bundchen measurements” you come up with numbers like 34-24-34, implying a ratio of 0.71 - I call bullshit!)

Filed under Life etc.

7 Comments

  • jane

    May 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am

    wikipedia reports that she is 34B-28-34 (US); 86-75-86. more believable

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisele_B%C3%BCndchen

  • msykes

    May 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Aha!

    28/34 = 0.82, very close to my own measurements o 0.80!

    PS: 34-28-34 translates to 86-71-86 cm, somebody should edit that Wikipedia entry (I guess I could).

    75cm = 29.5 inches - I doubt her waist is that large!

  • Absolutely Delightful » My First Wikipedia Edit!

    May 3rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    [...] So what happened? A few months ago I posted an article about waist:hip ratio in women, the basic premise being that curvy is good, and Monica Belluci is way hotter than Gisele Bundchen. Anyways, at the time I had searched Google for Gisele’s meansurements, and only come up with 34-24-34, which too my eye (and measurements) was way off. Jane wrote in to point me to Wikipedia’s entry on Gisele which put her at 34-28-34, far more believable. Thing is, the metric equivalent was posted as 86-75-86, not 86-71-86 like it should have been. Enter me (note the 23:35, 3 May 2007 edit).   [...]

  • Mick

    September 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am

    I don’t care what Gisele’s measuremnts are in that picture she looks so hot. She looks a lot sexier then Monica Belluci, who still looks sexy, but Gisele’s hips and theighs are so sexy. Thats what most lot guys want. Tight fit hips and theighs. It more important then big boobs, I mean even fat guys have big boobs. A fit tone lower half is all a guy really needs. Too bad most women are backwards when it come to what they think guys are attracted to. If you don’t think Gisele’s body is hot in that picture you don’t know what men want. It goes both ways a lot of men don’t know what women want in a man either.

  • msykes

    September 10th, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Fat guys do have big boobs - that’s a good point - but to suggest that men don’t want Monica Belluci is pure idiocy.

    Now I will agree that not all men like the same thing (and thank goodness, or the competition would be intense), but I think there are many, many men out there who prefer Monica over Gisele (myself included).

    Tight and fit are good too - curvy is no fun when it’s just flabby, but curvy and fit is way better than straight and fit.

  • susan

    October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 am

    whr isnt the case - there are whr’s which are close to 0.7 (i’m 0.71) which dont have defined cures. You can have long gradual curves or sharp curves.

    although no curves, giselle is extremely beautiful. in comparison to monica b., Giselle something more sexually charismatic (personally.)

    but still my point is that cuves are proportionally relative. I have a whr of (dd)38-29-41. and i am still considered as boyish with big tits. because i am still not curvy. it may be that i have vertically elongated pelvis measurements?

    It is difficult as guys often “think” i am hot then change their minds. it is unusual i have some very feminine parts and then some parts which confuse people also.

  • rachel

    October 6th, 2007 at 12:07 am

    your whr is subtle - i think if you want curves you gotta be around 0.68.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.