The geometry of sex
Jul. 20th, 2008 07:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomusThere's a mathematics of desire, and both men and women are intuitively aware of the numbers. Take the so-called "hourglass figure", for instance. The formula is that you divide waist circumference by hip circumference. The "hourglass" ratio is around 0.7, which means that the waist is about 70% of the girth of the hips below it. To make a perfect "hourglass", the breasts should then match the hip width. That shape is "curvy" and "feminine", but only 8% of women actually have it.
Research into the hourglass figure has thrown some curveballs: women with large breasts and narrow waists have higher hormone levels, the BBC reported in 2004, and are more likely to get pregnant. Then some research in 2007 seemed to find that curvier women are smarter and live longer than other women.
Scientists also looked at when and where the preference for the hourglass figure emerges, and found that it's not shared outside Western cultures (developing cultures prefer fatter women, a sign of nutritional health) or amongst pre-pubescents. Whereas 10 and 11 year-olds of both sexes express a preference for hourglass-shaped women, 5 or 6 year-olds prefer thin figures "which probably closely mirror their own shape", according to one Queensland University study.
If you have an hour or so to waste (I almost wrote "waist"), Long Dong's collection of Akira Gomi's taxonomic photos of naked women, Chinese and American, makes for fascinating viewing. We instantly know how we feel about each image, and the cues are geometric and mathematical ones, a matter of shapes, dimensions and ratios.
Those pictures are still and inexpressive, though -- a whole different set of "semantic angles" emerge when a body goes into motion. The pictures above are from a yoga video by eccentric Japanese vlogger Naganonoteiou. What interests me here is how some of the poses she strikes -- specifically the angles her legs are held in -- are "normal", others become "lightly erotic", others again way too blatant and over-the-top (reading a book with her feet, bent over backwards) and blow the appeal. This suggests that my brain assigns specific sexual semantics to small differences of posture; that there's a "geometry of sex".
I reject the cultural determinism of the Queensland study, though; I don't think the age you are or the culture you come from determines how you respond to this sexual geometry. Despite being a Western male, for instance, I find little appeal in the classic Sophia Loren hourglass figure -- this may be because of some innate horror of reproduction, or it may be because of strong positive associations with less curvy Asian women. Osyama from the Tokyo Bopper store (whose staff members are celebrated daily on the Merry Daily blog) represents my current ideal figure; the particular geometric relationship that concerns me, when I see pictures of her, isn't her waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), but speculation on whether her super-thin legs really do stay parallel all the way up to the top.
Then again, tastes change; I used to prefer Yama-Sama.
Research into the hourglass figure has thrown some curveballs: women with large breasts and narrow waists have higher hormone levels, the BBC reported in 2004, and are more likely to get pregnant. Then some research in 2007 seemed to find that curvier women are smarter and live longer than other women.
Scientists also looked at when and where the preference for the hourglass figure emerges, and found that it's not shared outside Western cultures (developing cultures prefer fatter women, a sign of nutritional health) or amongst pre-pubescents. Whereas 10 and 11 year-olds of both sexes express a preference for hourglass-shaped women, 5 or 6 year-olds prefer thin figures "which probably closely mirror their own shape", according to one Queensland University study.If you have an hour or so to waste (I almost wrote "waist"), Long Dong's collection of Akira Gomi's taxonomic photos of naked women, Chinese and American, makes for fascinating viewing. We instantly know how we feel about each image, and the cues are geometric and mathematical ones, a matter of shapes, dimensions and ratios.
Those pictures are still and inexpressive, though -- a whole different set of "semantic angles" emerge when a body goes into motion. The pictures above are from a yoga video by eccentric Japanese vlogger Naganonoteiou. What interests me here is how some of the poses she strikes -- specifically the angles her legs are held in -- are "normal", others become "lightly erotic", others again way too blatant and over-the-top (reading a book with her feet, bent over backwards) and blow the appeal. This suggests that my brain assigns specific sexual semantics to small differences of posture; that there's a "geometry of sex".
I reject the cultural determinism of the Queensland study, though; I don't think the age you are or the culture you come from determines how you respond to this sexual geometry. Despite being a Western male, for instance, I find little appeal in the classic Sophia Loren hourglass figure -- this may be because of some innate horror of reproduction, or it may be because of strong positive associations with less curvy Asian women. Osyama from the Tokyo Bopper store (whose staff members are celebrated daily on the Merry Daily blog) represents my current ideal figure; the particular geometric relationship that concerns me, when I see pictures of her, isn't her waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), but speculation on whether her super-thin legs really do stay parallel all the way up to the top.Then again, tastes change; I used to prefer Yama-Sama.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 07:18 am (UTC)Oh, and is there some taxonomic photocollection of balding women?
geo-rotic
Date: 2008-07-20 07:29 am (UTC)I find big boned girl sooooo sexually atractive!Dutch chicks or catalan chicks.I don't really know what they do with them (swimming I suppose) but broad shoulders long legs and a pretty face , strike me down.
On the other hand, I find women who fall into the hourglass figure to be so insipidly vulgar.Even if they'r active in maintaing the shape.It's just such a 00's shape.
What i admired about my ex-girlf is how contention emanates from every poise in a japanese body.
A warm feeling that they aren't actually TRYING in winning you over.
And it's probably because of this contention that relates to the innocence of the body that u find so fucking afrodisiac.
Alex P.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 07:49 am (UTC)is this study from ten/fifteen years ago or did the photographer just pick the most in-bad-taste retro town in America?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 07:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 08:01 am (UTC)The rest of the website seems to be crude and joyless soft porn. so i echo the question above...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 08:54 am (UTC)I find Gomi's "taxonomic" posing interesting -- it actually mirrors William Sheldon's (http://imomus.livejournal.com/265747.html) Harvard University body shapes project from the 1940s. That was controversial because of the nudity at the time, but also because body measurement of any kind had Nazi associations. We seem to have got over that now -- nobody shouts "Nazis!" at the BBC when they publish the exact ratio of the hourglass figure. But a German friend, when I told him I was planning this piece, said "You have to be careful with that stuff!"
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 08:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 09:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 09:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 09:34 am (UTC)Actually, Gomi shot the "Americans 1.0" pictures (including the one I lead with) in Los Angeles in 1994.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 09:45 am (UTC)It would be a better world if there were, Cap!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 11:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 11:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 11:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 11:58 am (UTC)I've heard a lot of different theories regarding sexual attraction -- The more you like the smell of someone the more their immune system differs from your own. That increases your attraction to them, and makes it more likely you'll breed with them, resulting in children with a diverse immune system. Or something.
Obviously, sex and reproduction are intrinsically linked, but are not mutually exclusive since we don't all fuck to have kids, and some of us have sexual attractions that will never result in reproduction.
Re: geo-rotic
Date: 2008-07-20 12:15 pm (UTC)Perhaps you don't find 'hourglass' women attractive. Whatever. Different strokes, different folks, etc. But dismissing a person's natural body shape as 'vulgar'? That's really quite insulting, not to mention oddly immature and puzzling.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 12:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 12:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 12:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 12:45 pm (UTC)Re: geo-rotic
Date: 2008-07-20 01:08 pm (UTC)Alex P.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 01:09 pm (UTC)They've also identified that gay men and straight women are better and worse at certain tasks than gay women and straight men. This sort of research is interesting but always makes me worry slightly because you'll then see people start to justify gender roles using "science"
For example, let's pretend we live in a parallel universe where matriarchies are the norm on earth. Someone could look at this research and declare "yes, it makes sense that women are the leaders and the politicians -- they're biologically better at communication than men. Leadership roles are hardwired into them."
I remember taking an online test (hardly scientific, I know) that determines how male or female your brain is and apparently I fall somewhere in the middle between male and female in regards to language and spatial awareness.
Also, the bear scene is pretty niche. It's a subculture within a subculture, it's not the gay mainstream. And I'm sure there are girls who like "bears", they just dont call them bears because it's not mainstream slang.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 01:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 02:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 03:18 pm (UTC)