Shapely centrefolds? Temporal change in body measures: trend analysis
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7378.1447 (Published 21 December 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:1447
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Editor,
Having obtained and worked with Playboy centrefold data, I am very
much aware of their limitations and must question their veracity. These
data consist of date and place of birth, height, weight, and bust, waist
and hip circumferences. At best these data can only be described as self
reported - but how are they determined?
Are we to assume that the model, when asked, gets out a tape measure
and measures herself? (One doubts whether the journalist who collects
these data does it for her.) But there is surely no standardised
technique. It is also noticeable that measurements are usually rounded to
the inch. Measurements to the half-inch have been reported but
infrequently. We must be very weary when so many measurements fit exactly
to our unit of measurement. Furthermore, bust measurements are most
frequently even numbered with relatively few odd numbered (and even fewer
half-inch) sizes reported. Since bras tend to be sold in even numbered
sizes (that rise in 2” increments), this suggests that the bust data
reported may simply be a statement of bra sizes. In fact, how else is the
centrefold going to be able to report cup size! The same goes for the
other circumferences, which may well be derived from clothe sizes.
I am informed that dress sizes can vary markedly. For example, one
designer’s size 8 is another’s size 10, yet both can fit the same woman
perfectly. Confronted with being able to get into two different sizes, and
having to go public about one’s measurements, what is the model to do? In
the fiercely competitive world of modelling, what are the influences that
lead her to choose which measurements to divulge? Does she pick the larger
or smaller size? Does she perhaps pick and mix, choosing perhaps the size
10 bust and the size 8 waist and hips? Thus, we must be very circumspect
concerning inferences about the bodies that occupy the clothes that
describe them.
The data may suggest that the values for calculated body mass index
are sometimes worryingly low but do the models actually look emaciated? I
am unaware of any author of papers using ‘centrefold’ data ever having
admitted to looking at the pictures. Just as the centrefold data are
freely available on the Internet (Playboy’s own website even provides such
a resource – http://www.playboy.com/playmates/directory/yearmonth.html),
so too are all of the centrefold images - one does not have to buy or
thumb through library copies of every issue. Although it may not appear
seemly to have looked (or, at least, to admit to having done so) with due
professional detachment, it is not inappropriate to survey the centrefold
image in pursuit of what it is conveying. This I have recently attempted
to do {1} – a brief report having been presented at a recent meeting of
the Society for the Study of Human Biology at Cambridge.
Centrefold models are, I believe, conveying a biological message
about why men should be interested in them. They may be what we call
‘sexy’ but first and foremost they are healthy. As I suggested at the SSHB
meeting – ‘there is no sex appeal without health appeal’. Looking at a
centrefold model, there are no external physical signs of anything
untoward - quite the opposite. The image is carefully constructed so as to
give the best possible impression.
Singh {2} suggests, "psychological mechanisms used to assess body
shape should be designed to detect relative variation rather than some
absolute optimum." That (to use his phrase) "local conditions" influence
attitudes about attractiveness is no doubt true but the extent of the
relativism within the psychological mechanisms must be questioned. The
impression that the centrefold has on her viewer is much greater than what
the reported data could be made to infer. In terms of her physique, she
may be said to occupy a place within the greater ‘morphological space’ of
all female physiques. The centrefold resides in the area of that space
that is deemed ‘attractive’. Styles and tastes may change and the
‘attractive’ area may shift within the overall space but it will never
swap places with the area deemed ‘ugly’. This, I suggest, is because we
have innate responses towards other people’s bodies that gravitate us
towards ‘attractive’ and (perhaps more importantly) away from
‘unattractive’ body types. There is adaptive advantage in this. Whether or
not Voracek and Fisher {3} are right in their conclusions about temporal
changes in the physique of centrefold models, I believe one thing will
always remain constant: that the ‘attractiveness’ of the centrefold model
reflects a fundamental optimum biological state that we call ‘health’.
Until very recently, we have only been able to assess another’s biological
state by judging their external appearance. This is exactly what mate
choice relies upon. Choosing the best available partner with whom to share
one’s genes (in the form of shared offspring) is an important biological
decision.
Helena Cronin {4} remarks in ‘The Ant and the Peacock’ that “fruit
tastes sweet, not nutritious” (p189). That is, biologically, we are geared
to like sweet food and as a consequence, by seeking out the same, we
unwittingly obtain the nutrients essential at cell level. Biologically,
males are geared to prefer attractive women. By seeking out attractive
women, men unwittingly obtain healthy partners with whom they can produce
healthy, viable children essential, as it were, at gene level.
References
1. Lewis, S. What the ‘body-beautiful’ might be telling us about the
‘body-healthy’ Ann. Hum. Biol. [ABSTRACT IN PRESS]
Transcript available at:
http://www.chester.ac.uk/~sjlewis/DM/May03Paper.htm
2. Singh, D. Evolutionary explanations of attractive female body
shape require greater temporal perspective. BMJ.com, Rapid Response, 22nd
Feb. 2003.
3. Voracek, M, and Fisher, ML. Shapely centrefolds? Temporal change
in body measures: trend analysis. BMJ 2002; 325: 1447-1448.
4. Cronin, H. The Ant and the Peacock. 1991; Cambridge University
Press.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Voracek and Fisher1 report a temporal trend towards smaller breasts
and hips, slightly higher waist-to-hip ratios (WHR) and more “androgynous”
looks in Playboy centerfolds. They question whether men have evolved to
judge women with low WHRs as sexually attractive.2
The original researcher reported that the WHRs of Playboy centerfolds
from 1955-1990 remained in the range of 0.68-0.71 – a range lower than
reported for reproductive age women (0.67-0.71).2 Voracek and Fisher
extended this analysis to 2001 and found that centerfold WHRs have
increased (mean WHRs for 2000-2001=0.71). Although these WHRs are in the
originally reported range, the researchers argue that if attractiveness
reflects evolved mental design, the association between attractiveness low
WHR (an indicator of fertility and health) should not show any temporal
change.
This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evolved
mechanisms. Female body shape is affected by ecological conditions (food
supply, physical labor) and hence psychological mechanisms used to assess
body shape should be designed to detect relative variation rather than
some absolute optimum.3 Such variation in body shape caused by local
conditions has influenced Playboy centerfold selection in recent years; as
acknowledged by Playboy itself, “women became more athletic… [and] more
inclined… [to] fitness regiments… We reflect that as well.”4 In spite of
shifts in selection criteria, it is remarkable that centerfolds still
fall within the healthy and fertile range.5
Another weakness is that Voracek and Fisher take Playboy measurements
as proof that there has never been any enduring consensus about ideal
female body shape. They then selected a Rubens’ painting, Marilyn Monroe
and a model to establish a “changing trend” towards stick insect-like
shapes. This arbitrary selection of examples allows no valid conclusions;
one could have selected other examples to stress the enduring appeal of
feminine body shape (Figure 1). To explore enduring preferences, one
needs to examine data spanning several centuries and including diverse
cultures.
To this end, I measured waists and hips in 286 ancient sculptures
from India, Egypt, Greece and Africa (Figure 2). In all four cultures,
the mean female WHR (Africa=0.71; India=0.58; Egypt=0.66; Greco-
Roman=0.74) was in the healthy and fertile range. It is remarkable that
despite population-specific morphological variation and local aesthetic
canons, female WHRs are represented in the healthy and fertile range.
The enduring appeal of curvaceous female bodies spanning over several
centuries and diverse cultures is powerful evidence for evolved design in
evaluating female attractiveness.
Figure Caption
Figure 1 Enduring trend in body shape. Venus de Milo (2nd century,
B.C.); Goya’s Maja
Desnuda (1795); Jennifer Lopez (2001).
Figure 2 Depiction of sexual dimorphism in WHR in ancient sculptures
in four cultures. The sourcebooks of the measurements suggested by art
historians unfamiliar with the WHR hypothesis contained a broad spectrum
of mythological and real persons from various time periods. In each
culture, a greater proportion of female sculptures depict WHR in a healthy
and fertile range and are lower than males’ WHRs. Analysis of variance
revealed highly significant main effect of sex (F(1,278) = 71.8,
p<.001), culture (F(3,278) = 25.1, p<.001), and nonsignificant sex
by culture interaction (F(3.278) = 2.61, p<.056).
References
1. Voracek, M., Fisher, M.L. Shapely centerfolds? Temporal change
in body measures: trend analysis. BMJ 2002; 325: 1448-9.
2. Singh, D. Adaptive significance of female physical
attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993; 65:
293-307.
3. Symons, D. The evolution of human sexuality. 1979; Oxford
University Press.
4. Farley, B. retrieved from ABC News.com, Dec 20, 2002.
5. Zaadstra, B.M., Seidell, J.C., Van Noord, P.A., Tevelde, E.R.,
Habbema, J.D.F., Vrieswijk, B., Karbaat, J. Fat and female fecundity:
Prospective study of body fat distribution and conception rates. BMJ
1993; 306; 484-487.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Amusing work, but haven't we seen this before?
Only last year there was this publication, which is not cited in the
BMJ article.
Seven tenths incorrect: Heterogeneity and change in the waist-to-hip
ratios of Playboy centerfold models and Miss America pageant winners
Freese J, Meland S
JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH
39 (2): 133-138 MAY 2002
Abstract:
Drawing on an article by Singh (1993), many discussions of the
evolutionary psychology of heterosexual male preferences have reported a
remarkable consistency in the waist-to-hip ratios of Playboy N7 centerfold
models and Miss America pageant winners over time. We reexamine the
measurement data on these American beauty icons and show, that these
reports are false in several ways. First, the variation in waist-to-hip
ratios among these women is greater than reported. Second, the center of
the distribution of waist-to-hip ratios is not 0.70, but less than this.
Third, the average waist-to-hip ratio within both samples has changed over
time in a manner that is statistically significant and can be regarded as
mutually consistent. Taken together, the findings undermine some of the
evidence given for the repeated suggestion that there is something special
-evolutionarily hard-wired or otherwise-about a specific female waist-to-
hip ratio of 0.70 as a preference of American heterosexual males.
And there are also cross-cultural tests of the WHR hypothesis that
have found cultural differences. One is mine, and another I am aware of
is by Frank Marlowe and a colleague.
Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology
Marlowe F, Wetsman A
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
30 (3): 481-489 FEB 2001
Abstract:
Female waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is widely cited by evolutionary
psychologists as an example of an evolved male preference. Although many
studies have found men prefer a low WHR, almost all have been conducted
with college students. We tested men in a foraging society and found that
they preferred high WHRs. We interpret this as a preference for heavier
women, which we think should be common where there is no risk of obesity.
Based on these results and others, we suggest that WHR preference varies
with ecology. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Yu DW, Shepard GH
NATURE
396 (6709): 321-322 NOV 26 1998
no abstract available, but it's on Nature's website.
I suppose this is all just evidence for the Balkanization of science.
Medical researchers don't listen to sex researchers who don't hear from
anthropologists and evolutionary biologists.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
As a financial author, I found this study to be of great
significance. There is a good analogy to the temporal cahnges of
centerfolds and the newly discovered desirabilty of stock dividends. As
the centerpiece of a weekly personal finance commentary, I used this all-
important study in my most recent article. Thanks for your fine work.
A
full text of the commentary "Centerfolds and Dividends" can be found at
http://www2.netstockdirect.com/resources/commentary.asp?id=707&type=2&re....
George C. Fisher,
Author, All About DRIPs and DSPs, McGraw Hill June 2001; Author, The
StreetSmart Guide to Overlooked Stocks, McGraw Hill Nov 2002
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
It must have been a festive delight for Father Christmas to be
educated about shapely centrefolds1 in the Christmas edition of the BMJ.
More delightful must have been the observations that the study was not
funded (so where did the funding for 577 copies of Playboy come from?),
and that there were no competing interests pertaining to the authors
deriving any undisclosed benefits (either aesthetic or material), from
Playboy for choosing to study it’s centrefolds in preference to those from
rival publications. In the interests of sexual equality, perhaps the
authors might wish to undertake a similar festive study for Mother
Christmas in 2003.
Sincerely,
Dr Kiran Patel
Competing interests: None
SpR in Cardiology
Good Hope Hospital
Sutton Coldfield
1. Voracek M, Fisher ML. Shapely centrefolds? Temporal change in body
measures: trend analysis. BMJ 2002:325:1447-8
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
My personnel opinion on this article goes beyond just the outer
'look' of these women. From my viewpoint I draw this conclusion...
No longer are 'women' desired in this country.
If you would observe several of American magazines you could take
note that not only has the body shape changed-but look at these
contributing factors as a whole-AGE,Ability,Stamina,Sexuality,etc.
No longer is an woman of feminity desired. Not just men but soiety as
a whole has placed unrealistic expectations on women (and men) and the
superhuman person has come forth.
A woman whom can miltitask. One that can meet every
physical,mental,emotional,psycholigcal,mental,and social demands that men
(and women-whom are expecting perfection out of them selves) have desired
to place upon women. Women are now expected to "bring home the bacon" and
still maintain this faulity image of being a seductive 12 year old virgin.
The U.S. has lost what true feminity is all about. The demands that
have been placed upon ourselves is currently creating burnout and homes
that are falling apart,if a woman is not 'meeting' up to this image after
a marriage has been performed. If male or female do not meet up to our
expectations then in the U.S. society just march down to the courthouse to
void out the marriage. No wonder there is s drivenness for perfection.
Nobody wants to be pitched aside as useless-having no good use for
anymore.
Blame cannot be put on men alone. Women are putting the expectation
of perfect upon themselves. Men almost have no other choice but to change
what they desire out of a woman. All they see is this 'droid' of a woman
(or a man) and becomes the "servival of the fittest" issue here. If they
want someone that they can spend the rest of their life with they have had
to change what they desire from the oppsite sex--to what is socially
acceptable at this time. With the majority of the inner city women look
this way, what else are they to do?
Women are choosing to live off gummy bears and water for food at this
time. When depression comes upon the economy (as to what is happening) the
voluptuous woman will then be desired again. All the waif thin women will
have died from starvation or have lost their jobs and cannot perform to
perfectionism. It is then that we will go back to true beauty.
Men's desire:
Wanted. A woman wiht a gental spirit,who is
loving,compassionate,forgiving,ACCEPTING (of herself and others)does not
always have to be 'wright' about everything,and has the beauty of
submission upon her. A woman who does not have to have everythig perfect
all the time. The same goes for a man too.
The image that women currently have upon themselves will change.
Women will begin to complain (at to which some allready have) about all
these high expectations that have been placed upon them. (With their
'unknowing' they have also placed upon themselves) Yes, they will blame
'men' for all the expected perfectionism but men need to stand silently
firm and do not take all the blunt of the blame. They will see their true
desire of a woman rise back up to what it used to be.
These comments are written by a woman whom os 5'6, 124 pounds, and
has curves. I am beautiful.
Yes-I am an TRUE woman.
Competing interests:
Just comments
Competing interests: No competing interests
While the following information from a "review" may pertain to
pathological states, it is very possible that an increase in percentage of
women of higher testosterone within the population may also produce more
fat as a result of increased testosterone within a "normal" range. This
normal range would increase as the percentage of women of higher
testosterone increases.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000 Jun;24 Suppl 2:S56-8
Sex hormones, obesity, fat distribution, type 2 diabetes and insulin
resistance: epidemiological and clinical correlation.
Haffner SM.
Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at
San Antonio, 78284-7873, USA.
Increased androgenicity as assessed by increased testosterone and
decreased SHBG is strongly associated with an unfavorable body fat
distribution and increased glucose and insulin concentrations and insulin
resistance in both pre- and postmenopausal women.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I suspect the changes documented by Voracek and Fisher are a
component of very long time scale changes in social attitudes that reflect
the evolution of signifiers of status. I am impressed that over the
course of my adult life, about 30 years, it has become not only acceptable
for women to look 'fit', but even desirable to have some obvious, but
mild, muscle definition. Achieving this kind of appearance usually
requires some investment of time and energy. Who has the time and
resources to achieve these results? The answer is the affluent.
Similarly, when did a suntan become a fashion accessory? For most of
western history, a pale complexion was considered desirable. Why? The
affluent didn't have to do agricultural work and a pale complexion was a
signifier of status. Today, suntans are supposed to indicate sufficient
leisure time to obtain in tan, usually in places that require a reasonable
amount of money to visit.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor. It is important to acknowledge that the principle eating
disorder in the UK today is over-eating. It's consequence,
obesity, is vastly more important as a public health issue than
anorexia nervosa. Obesity is also a progressive condition, unlike
anorexia nervosa which tends to ameliorate with age.
It is necessary to separate different levels to this matter. At the
societal level I would speculate that the changes in the
"maximally sexually attractive" woman's body, from the chubby
Mrs Rubens to the sinewy Eva Herzigova, are due to the social
significance of fatness: In the seventeenth century being thin
indicated poverty - the poor laboured hard, starved and as a
result of overcrowding and poor sanitation suffered from
infectious diseases. Being fat represented ease - the rich did
less physical work, ate plenty and lived in more sanitary
conditions. In the twenty first century, in this part of the world,
this has reversed, being fat implies a bad, cheap, energy rich
diet, a lack of physical activity and is associated with being poor.
Whilst being thin is associated with wealth, presumably through
greater health awareness, a healthier diet and more opportunity
for recreational exercise.
With this theory one doesn't have to hypothesize a genetically in-
built attraction to a given BMI or hip/waist ratio or fertility. One
only needs to hypothesize (or observe) that people are attracted
by social dominance (high social class).
Social dominance is associated with health and longevity. In the
seventeenth century the rich lived longer than the poor partly
because they were better nourished. Nowadays the rich live
longer because the poor are unhealthily fat and die earlier from
the so-called diseases of affluence.
Of course there is a geographical as well as historical variation,
and I would hypothesize that in a country where starvation is
significant, that the "maximally sexually attractive" body is fatter.
The individual with anorexia nervosa is, however, a different
matter. By definition this is an ab-normal case and one should
look for the individual causes, rather than the societal.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Authority of Playboy in Determining American Ideals
Do Playboys' models -- and the men who admire them -- accurately
reflect
the broad American ideal of feminine beauty of a specific era? Did every
breathing male in 1953 participate in a poll which requested their own
ideals
for bust, waist, and hip measurements in a mate? No. Did every man -- or
atleast most men -- subscribe to Playboy. No. And who decided what the
readers wanted? Hugh? Is he a credible athropologist? A scientist of
any
sort? Was data even utilzed to gauge the readers' wishes -- or did the
readers just happily accept the image of any half naked girl with a decent
smile?
With 50+ years of marketing and a much more liberal market in which
to sell,
"most" of American men are still not prescribed to Playboy. No one woman,
no matter how beautiful, could embody the desires of the majority of a
broad
male population at a single time. Marketing (and bold magazine titles, eg
"SEXIEST WOMAN ALIVE"..as of this week) may fool some into believing in a
prototype, but a simple poll would always indicate otherwise. How many
women share the title "America's Sweetheart"? Katie Holmes.. Jackie O..
Marilyn Monroe.. Britney Spears.. Brad Pitt? Such mercurial standards
(weekly
shifts) could never accurately quantify any ideal. Ideals last.. at least
longer
than a month.
The American male population is much too diverse and mercurial in
choices
(as affected by the media) to ever hold an ideal for any period of time --
a
week, a month, a year, a decade.. possibly a century.. but we're only 2
centuries old.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests