>>11634336Not going to read the stupid study, but it does support some of my existing biases. Smaller women with less exaggerated figures are mainly found in colder climates, which of course often have more intelligent humans. Women with larger hips and so forth, unless they're like an Amazonian, generally have a different kind of intelligence and behave more like breeders. There's also just the simple fact that narrower hips are more more efficient for bipedal locomotion.
It's not really about "masculine vs feminine". You have scrawny males which still look masculine. You always have scrawny female which still look feminine. And the inverse. Therefore, to still have a waist:hip of 0.6 - 0.75 (whereas men are more like 0.9) a woman would have be overall smaller.
There's a number of factors. There is a racial component. For example if you look at many Asians you don't really think of them as having wide hips. What's important to me is that a woman can get around easily, and is physically competent. This probably reflect Northern European breeding strategies where you were more apt to be in smaller tribes and you would want a woman who could stand a chance taking care of the children if she was separated from a greater group, you got killed off, etc. You can just kind of tell a balanced physique which is meant for something other than looking hyper-feminine.
