A few years ago, I read an article that said part of what subconsciously attracts men to women is a favorable waist-to-hip ratio. Biologically, an ideal ratio between 0.7 and 0.8 is supposed to indicate a woman will be fertile. Supposedly, this is why curvy or hourglass figures are considered sexy and beautiful. Not to mention that such a ratio can make for a pretty plump posterior. More men must be looking to start families because it has become an obsession recently. Who do we have to blame (or thank) for this? Hilary Swank at the Oscars in that backless gown of hers, which looked like it was almost pointing to her rump? Maybe. But, wait a second. What about those of us (the majority, it seems) who are dying to be thin? Did you know that Americans spend an estimated $35 billion to $45 billion trying to lose weight every year? That’s billion, with a “B.” So we’re supposed to be stick thin and have great booties? Evidently so. Because the measurement is a ratio, it’s a comparison of how big your hips are versus your waist. Therefore, yes, you can be rail thin and have a 0.7 ratio, a la Kate Moss. Find yours by measuring the circumference of your hips right where the two bones stick out, then measure the circumference of your waist. Divide the number for your waist by the figure for your hips. That’s your waist-to-hip ratio. Find a backless gown of your own at eDressMe.com.
If you have one of these… show it off in one of these, a backless ‘Million Dollar’ dress replica of Hilary Swank’s Oscar gown.