Kent-- the surimise you make at the end of your e-mail is true; and the
.6-.8 ratio has been well established around the world. I haven't looked
at this literature in a while, but I'll check my files. Time Magazine ran
a cover story on the subject a few years back, and the story gave a lot
references and discussed who was doing the research and where it was being
conducted. Similarly, Desmond Morris spent a lot of time on the topic
in his PBS series on human sexuality that came out last year (I think
it also appeared on The Discovery Channel and/or The Learning Channel).
The classics in the field include:

David M. Buss, THE EVOLUTION OF DESIRE: STRATEGIES OF HUMAN MATING (1995)

Helen E. Fisher, ANATOMY OF LOVE: A NATURAL HISTORY OF MATING, MARRIAGE,
AND WHY WE STRAY (1995)

Desmond Morris, THE HUMAN SEXES (1998)

I believe that Buss is in the Department of Psychology at the University
of Texas.  I also recall seeing the cross-cultural studies coming out of
the University of Arizona.  Like I said, I'll dig around my files.  But
you might want to look at Buss, Fisher, and Morris.

Cheers!

Gregg C.

On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Kent Multer wrote:

> >One of the very interesting findings of evolutionary psychology is
> >that the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is basically
> >wrong. Cross-cultural studies of beauty reveal two key findings:  (1)
> >the most desirable women have a waist-to-hip ratio between .6 and .8;
> > (2) the most desirable mate has symmetrical features (both body and
> > face).

 Gregg, these are interesting facts.  Could you please give us a book, URL,
> or other reference for more on this?
>
> Also, I was wondering about fact #1 in reference to the question of fatness
> being considered beautiful.  It's interesting that the ideal measurement is
> a waist-to-hip ratio, rather than, say, width-to-height, which I would have
> guessed.  That seems to imply that some cultures prefer fat women, others
> thin; but in all cases, the waist/hip ratio is about the same.  Is that
> true?  More broadly, how wide a variety of cultures did this survey include?
>
> Thanks -- K.