Carol Adams takes this argument further in The Sexual Politics of Meat. Not only are women and animals deemed inferior objects to be judged by their physical attributes, they are objects to be consumed.

Lapsus in the quoted text, second phrase : You wrote "first sex", but the original text says "first six"... !

So six out of every seven women in the United States in 1959 never married as they did not fit men's definition of acceptability?

Clearly if you know 4-H Judging then you realize the importance of a standard. If you don't have a standard to judge something; giving you a common baseline to compare to, how do you know what score to give something? I mean c'mon. Don't get mad at the standard, thats necessary for the activity. Get mad at the pageant and the idea that they need that standard to begin with.

This is a brilliant post! Thank you so much for writing it. I'm going to bookmark it and get my students to read it when the semester starts.

Putting point values into a chart does not mean the metrics are not natural or biological. It is called a reference. You can blame society, but society develops from desire. It's unfortunate that it upsets you, but you cannot convince everyone that their natural inclinations are unnatural.

Thac0, Bryan et al, the metrics are NOT natural or biological, as anyone with a passing knowledge of history of the arts can attest. To start with, check this Titian or this Boucher. Both images are cheesecake.

I'm sure if you go looking, you can find the charts where someone has figured out just how they judge bodybuilders, too. Sometime we silly little apes like to think with our forebrains instead of our instincts.

I think this says more about the culture of the 1950s, with stringent views about rules and norms, than it does about perceptions of physical attractiveness. I think you'll need much more convincing evidence to argue against evolution (sexual selection in particular) as the origin of standards for beauty. Those arguments are pretty well accepted within science.

I do appreciate the pithy comparison to livestock though.

I'm all up in number 3!!! Looks like Ms. Torso from Rear View (Hitchcock). Mmmmmm....

So much for the "personal best" myth/rationalization.

Interesting that the ideal of beauty (then and now) just takes for granted that the woman in question doesn't have a disability. A beautiful woman in a wheelchair? Never!

So speaketh Ms. Wheelchair Florida '05.

Bryan, luckily for women with mildly sloping shoulders everywhere who have absolutely no trouble getting hit on, you are wrong.

This is an interesting comparison, which it was first made (to my knowledge) at the 1968 protests of the Miss America. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see an example in the newspaper photo.

http://www.redstockings.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=103

We sometimes don't give enough props to the 2nd wavers. Just sayin'.

#3 and #4 are where it's at, #7 has man shoulders

When I took a figure painting class, the teacher handed out a paper showing us the "Ideal" proportions for a woman. The handout pointed out that the length of an actual thigh was not this long.

wow, that chart is just offensive. all of those bodies look ridiculously perfect to me.
and is it just me or are the boobs in the last one WAY bigger than all the rest??

As for the shoulders, sloping shoulders were fashionable in the 1860s (and elsewhere), while wide, square shoulders were in in the 1930s -- and we all remember the 80s. Like I said, there is nothing in the ideal woman that is immutable. Commenters blaming biology, genetics or evolution on current body image fashion trends are just wrong.

I think it's interesting that gapping thighs were a problem back then--aren't thighs that touch considered "fat" now?

Why is no. 7 so different from the others--different, hair, different bathing suit, different knees, different shoes?

Actually, I'm kind of happy to see that they have put together some sort of standard. I show horses and the amount of times the results vary due to some personal preference of the judge... If you're going to judge something you need a standard to follow.

Yes I agree that it's a bit ridiculous that we're judging people and seeing the 'perfect' body as someone else has envisioned it is always going to spark some disagreement... BUT this IS a competition and you DO need a standard.

Is this standard correct? I've no idea. But at least there is one.

@Andrea - I noticed the thighs as well. I wish thicker thighs were still considered attractive... Mine may have actually been an asset :P

It's possibly a reflection of changing beauty standards that I find number seven to be the least attractive of the bunch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

Are her shoulders a bit too round? Someone should have pointed that out to her before she signed up.

I don't buy this evolutionary / materialist bullshit. Sure, it's a part of the argument, but humans are also capable of making moral decisions based on significant things other than our primal urges. Quite frankly, the advertising world has run rampart with their air-brushed idea of perfection, and for what? So you will buy shoes and makeup (which will look great on your annorexic body).

Those of us with any brains can simply ignore things like pagents, but it's hard to ignore two story high naked people plastered all around your city scape. I'm certainly not a prude, but I believe we have to start thinking about the intent behind these things, and looking closely at the impacts.

I suspect the criteria for number 6 has changed, since women with some muscle tone (but not "bulk," as my clients used to tell me when I was a personal trainer) are now considered attractive. If you have muscular legs, chances are there will be spaces between them at cetain spots. I remember a fitness book my sister had (she probably got it in the late 80s?) that identified the ideal for women as being able to hold three quarters with their legs - at the upper thigh, knee, and ankle - while having space between the legs everywhere else (while standing with feet together).

Wow, I thought all seven images were of the same figure. It was only once I read the caption and looked again that I saw any difference between them. I am fascinated by how we are first trained to look for and then begin to see/believe that these subtle differences have any value. Thanks for posting.

My ballet teacher told us in about 1997 that the "perfect" dancer's legs had three gaps in them, including one between the thighs. I spent half an hour in front of the mirror bemoaning my less than perfect legs - I guess I should have just gone back in time.

It is not either biology or culture, it makes no sense to be just either one. We are social animals, we are programmed to go with the flow, to like what others like. So it is reasonable that beauty standards, to some extent, is cultural.

If we are like other mammals, sexual selection shaped our behavior, it directed our lust to certain characteristics, and I don't know why we wouldn't be like other mammals. Those things we look for could very well be a combination of physical and social traits a person has plus whatever other trait that others desire, and this is where I think culture plays a major part.

But even considering that there's just one beauty standard programmed for every human doesn't make much sense, I think it is more reasonable to consider that different people might have different natural inclinations for what they look for in a partner.

Point is, let's not ignore the fact that we are animals just like any other animal, we are expected to act according to how we were programmed to act. This is in no way me trying to justify some bad things we do, but denying our natural impulses might lead to bad things just as well.

Ah yes, the "three diamonds" that were supposed to be visible just above the ankle, calf, and thighs...first time I heard of that, I threw up in my mouth a little.

On the other hand, I really like are the descriptions on the animal charts: "wasty throat", "walks peggy". Bespeaks of another time.

I do resent the idea that your collarbones could disqualify you. I mean, if you were willing, you could diet or work out to meet some of these parameters, but if your shoulders slope a little too much, you might as well jump off a bridge.

The comparison you've drawn is brilliant, but there's one big difference: Unlike a prized pig, the participants in this or any pageant volunteered to be judged. The thing I find most interesting about this is that "the form divine, needs only a beautiful face." As if her full potential as a person hinged on that one little detail. That's the ideal I'm glad has changed. Thanks for an insightful post!

"When I took a figure painting class, the teacher handed out a paper showing us the “Ideal” proportions for a woman. The handout pointed out that the length of an actual thigh was not this long."

Well I wouldn't call them the "ideal" proportions as it doesn't really reflect individual variance that is demonstrated in these drawings, but a realistic approximation of bone growth. Slightly ableist, but with proper nutrition and the absence of anything interrupting the "normal" growth process, "everyone's" foot will be the length of their forearms, eyes will be found halfway between the cranium and chin and aligned with the top of the ears. They are "universal."

I always loved my life drawing classes because it is one of the few places where a large variety of body shapes and sizes are actually celebrated.

Did anyone else find the suggestion that hips can be too wide a little odd?
I don't think I've ever seen a woman with hips I would call 'too wide'... well, maybe in anime somewhere, but that totally doesn't count.

I am curious why the author of this article says "I was quite good at it, just so you know." How is that relevant? I thought the author was going to say this was more acceptable than doing the same to women until I saw "Carol Adams."

Louche--

There's no point to the comment, other than to make my friends giggle at the idea that someone who has been a vegetarian since 1996 was also a gifted 4-H meat judge.

Before the flaws were listed, I thought that the last body type would have been listed as "flawed" for having a long torso and proportionately short legs...also this figure appears to be standing oddly compared to the others. I find 3 and 4 more attractive. 6 as well, because honestly the leg thing is not so noticeable.

An interesting theory about why men may be drawn to bilateral symmetry is that lack of symmetry may be associated with parasitic infections, at least historically.

lol...I wanna eat some girls prime rib now....

All this post made me think is: am I a cannibal, too?

I also tend to judge women the same way I judge steers and pigs.

Gender sociology should not consist of insecure women justifying their superficial flaws. Young, thin, symmetrical women are desired in western society. Deal with it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, ladies - just because the Miss Universe competition uses these characteristics doesn't mean we all do. Someone out there loves you, you can be sure of it.

yay my shoulders are too square....are these people freaking serious?!?!?!?

please help me to create a judging criteria of the beauty pageant of this event (production number, school uniform, casual wear, jeans wear, evening gown) 

Look at how (comparatively) 'demure' those bathing suits are on the drawings on the Miss America Winner Chart.

just for the sake of playing devils advocate... this is a chart made by judges to determine beauty. It is not a chart that men use in the real world. (yes, it reflected views of beauty at the time) Some quantitative way to determine "beauty" would actually make it more fair than leaving it to opinion/feeling. In bodybuilding competitions for men, there are similar standards in deciding who is the most aesthetic/has the best build.

I bet whoever made that chart was gay. The "form divine" here looks more like the Oscar trophy than a woman. I'm pretty sure most men would pick number 3 as the winner since it has the most pronounced curves.