A woman’s face is the true indicator of fertility, it isn’t really nearly as amenable to later changes at the gym, at the surgeon or by diet. It’s a true signal, trust it over the body if there is a conflict. If a woman has an average face for her race and a “great” body, the body is fake. It must be, because they’re supposed to have developed at the same time, with the same nutrients and genes and hormones. A highly dimorphic body would also produce a highly dimorphic face by the same conditions.
slight repost for SEO
“Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history-number of children and pregnancies-in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not. Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.”
This is how men traditionally found a good wife in a time of petticoats. The face, neck, shoulders and arms show you the rest of her body. Their books emphasize these as important* and their fashions allowed a plunging neckline to better judge fitness. It’s also why they hated make-up, not for the flush but the drawing-on of superior features. This still happens, largely with the midface and eye area. If a girl draws on her nose, just say no.
*They were incredibly bitchy about scrawny, ugly necks and shoulders up until the Edwardian Era. Kiera Knightley’s man bod would be the epitome of ugly. They wanted tapered full shoulders and neck.
That came back in the 1950s, for similar post-war fertility need reasons.
Note the thighs match the neck, so no thin necks either. Lithe arms, nice legs. It’s a rule. They considered the neck and wrists feminine and seriously, what woman nowadays goes to the surgeon about those? It’s a clear signal, still.
Breadth of hips imitated in elbows, palms and knee joints. It’s the same genetic input. A woman with large hips and tiny knee joints has had surgery. The knees develop before puberty to accommodate broad hips. At puberty, they can get even bigger as the legs get longer, so there’s no woman with long legs, regardless of height, and tiny knee joints. It’s impossible, biologically. Otherwise, they’d have biomechanical issues with walking. There’s an angle I can’t be bothered to look up produced by broader hips down to the knee joint and when it exceeds a certain level or gradient the woman can’t actually walk, literal mobility issues. The shoulders aren’t broad in bones (that’s masculine) nor are the feet in women. Long feet are a direct metric of height to stay upright, it’s a hinge but slender feet are the feminine marker and foot-binding’s purpose was narrowness. A woman with broad shoulders and narrow, bound feet has trouble walking. Men also have broader feet to match their shoulders. They throw a lot of weight forward.
A gamine type body, with one or two pleasing features (e.g. just a small waist and long legs) would also produce deficits in maternal instinct and capacity. Caveat emptor. This is important for men selecting a wife, as opposed to a quick shag (what society tells you). If you have a choice of two women, pick the nubile one.
Curvy women may sag, yes, but they don’t come to resemble a man, especially after menopause (see study above).
I’d like to see a study of husband’s desire for his wife by body type. Imagine the outrage. Apples/Naturals would be the worst. Just avoid women with broader shoulder bones than hips. You can tell at a distance.
Healthy shoulders and such are ignored nowadays with dire sub-fertility consequences. Babies eat that fat.
Note, a daintier wrist because the elbow join is broader.
The entire body is a signal, T&A is a ((distraction.)) Padding will do those.
Note the emphasis. That was behind Marilyn’s charm. Victorian body in 50s Americana clothing.
Nowadays we have knee length skirts as normal but very low necklines as odd or even offensive. It’s possible to derive fitness better from the legs, like a deer, really, or a horse, but most men have lost the skill or drive, fetishising tights and heels instead. Upper class men still judge by and fetishize the legs and were behind the rationing shift in fashions to display them. Middle class men fixate on backsides but not hips, which would be a superior indicator as breadth. Lower orders fixate on breasts, high time preference indicated. The woman herself may already be pregnant.