This always provokes a lively discussion when it comes up, so I thought I could post an article so we can discuss it properly in the comments section. I also promised loyal reader Highwayman an article on this subject at least a decade ago. But today I can only post a crude placeholder for now.
*Image of a Lorenzo Bartolini sculpture taken from: https://www.cnstatue.com/lorenzo-bartolini-bacchante-marble-female-sculpture-mok1-140.html
Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR)
I have, however, found a site that lists the average waist and hip sizes for American girls between 10 and 19. One of the most agreed-upon criteria men find attractive in females is a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) between 0.67 and 0.80. So I calculated the average WHR for each year and found that girls between 13 and 17 got closest to it (peaking slightly at 15 and 16) and that by 18 they had already started moving further away from it. Of course, the average American female (even a 16-year-old girl) does not have the ideal WHR, but at 13-17 they are closest to it, and presumably, any random girl that age has a greater likelihood of having it than girls or women outside that age group. In the graph below, remember that lower is better (closer to the ideal).
| Age | Hips (cm) | Waist (cm) | WHR |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 75.8 | 70.0 | 0.92 |
| 11 | 81.2 | 73.2 | 0.90 |
| 12 | 85.5 | 76.6 | 0.90 |
| 13 | 91.0 | 78.5 | 0.86 |
| 14 | 93.9 | 80.6 | 0.86 |
| 15 | 93.4 | 80.4 | 0.86 |
| 16 | 95.6 | 82.2 | 0.86 |
| 17 | 97.6 | 84.2 | 0.86 |
| 18 | 95.8 | 85.2 | 0.89 |
| 19 | 97.6 | 88.0 | 0.90 |
New post for discussion on peak female attractiveness.
I understand why Robert Lindsay wants to tread lightly. However, I’d also ask, what self-proclaimed “alpha male” is afraid to speak the truth about the most attractive females on Earth?
Just the fact we have to debate this topic, that has already been discussed and solved for thousands of years by men greater than us, shows the extent of the outrageous feminist censorship in 2026.
It’s simple – when girls hit puberty and when we hit puberty, we desire those pubescent girls. That desire doesn’t change, unless you have hormone problems. That’s it.
All men desire a newly pubescent, sexual girl. All men also desire a more experienced temptress, but to a lesser extent if she is obviously older.
Perhaps there is something to it but when they show men slides of naked females in the lab, they rate 17-24 higher than any other age group. A female is not truly ready to breed until her hips widen at 18-19. So it makes sense that men would rate these females as most arousing. It’s been proven by dickmeters too. When shown slides of 15-16 year old girls, men rate them a bit lower at 83% of maximum.
There is a group of men who react maximally to 15-16 year old girls. We could call those ephebophiles I suppose. But these ephebophiles are not a whole lot different than normal men because most react maximally to grown women too. 15 year old girls look gawky and often have small tits and a stick like body. 16 year old girls look perfect as they are THIN WITH CURVES.
However this is an abnormal body as the hips are not wide enough to optimally carry a baby so there can be complications. It’s basically a fake and maladaptive body. As I said men rate the 17-24 group are most arousing of all. Those are college girls. I’d rather fuck a college girl than a silly giggly teenage high school girl any day of the week.
Within that group men rate 23 year old women highest of all. Just happens to be peak fertility and the age at which there are the fewest complications, so it makes perfect sense biologically. But it’s a silly debate because the entire 17-24 year old age group is rated highest of all. Men rate 12-14 year old girls a lot lower at 52% of maximum and not all men react much to them at all. 17% of men di not react to Lolis at all.
It makes sense as they are way too young, look like little girls, are extremely silly and immature and tend to have a lower sex drive. A pregnancy at this age is very dangerous. The organs are too small to carry a baby and 1/4 of them get ripped up inside if they carry to term and if they don’t fix it they can never have kids again. Not optimal at all. 21% of men test “pedophilic” in the lab as the react maximally to little girls.
But most all are just as attracted to grown women so they can just focus on that and forget the girls. But high arousal to little girls is common among men and should not be condemned. Instead we should encourage them to focus on the mature females they like just as much. It’s ok to be turned on by little girls. Most men are turned on by little girls but not so much.
51% of men are aroused by little girls at a low level so this type of attraction is normal among men. The problem is you can’t act on it and if you do you can’t act on it or you go to jail. Or to a Pedo Island penal colony where everyone is over 18.
Young teen girls are generally silly and I’d much rather date a girl of 17 to 20, but that has nothing to do with what we are hardwired to be attracted to, and everything to do with the very recent infantilization of adolescence.
Quote: “However this is an abnormal body as the hips are not wide enough to optimally carry a baby so there can be complications. It’s basically a fake and maladaptive body.”
This is a strange statement (or not, depending on what age you have in mind). What is hugely maladaptive is the average late age until which women are driven to delay having babies in the West. I suspect if a woman/girl is able to get pregnant, she is able to carry the baby in general. I do not believe Evolution could have botched up the job to the point of enabling females to get pregnant while not being able to give birth.
Note that Society has no problem with grown women born with narrow hips (ie women who should remain childless) getting pregnant by all means possible.
My mother was 5ft 2″, narrow hips, and always under 50KG and she pumped out four of us. Admittedly, I was a premature baby, but she was nearly 40 at the time.
Yep.
What about considering the age of attractiveness and ability to have babies from the other side of the wall? Why is being attracted to and wanting to have children with a 14-y-o any more problematic than with a 40-y-o?
It’s probably LESS unusual or maladaptive, since pregnancy even at 35 is technically termed a geriatric pregnancy.
A pregnant 14-y-o? Oh the horror!
A pregnant 40-y-o? All good.
That’s the typical mindset in this day and age.
A 14 year old girl can get literally ripped to pieces by carrying a pregnancy to term. This will occur jn 25% of them. Much worse than a 40 year old woman. Her problem is getting pregnant at all.
I just looked that up and I was right. You can see a 16 year old girl’s body is maladaptive by noticing that no woman over 18 has a body like that. The minimum age at which a female can deliver a pregnancy without complications is 18. From 13-17 the hips are too narrow and there can be complications. From 13-15 it is pretty bad.
Her hips are way too narrow. At 16-17 her hips are still too narrow but nowadays we can usually deal with it effectively. A woman’s hips keep growing after age 18. The width peaks at 25-30 at which point a woman’s hips widen to their maximum point, making that age the safest for delivering babies. So I was right and you were wrong. I would be carefulabout disagreeing with me on scientific matters if I were you.
I cannot speak for the average corn-syrup soaked contemporary Ameriboob if he holds up a makeup caked 24 year old ameriskank with humongous tits as the ideal. Rather than some sorry incarcerated American who has been induced to wear a dickmeter, I take my queue from the likes of Canova who was regarded as a master of the female form and concentrated very much on newly pubescents with their lithe bodies and emerging pert breasts. Walking through art galleries looking at paintings and statues there seems to be a range of ages depicted and it isn’t always easy to tell either as they used conventions like making limbs appear bulbous, as I understand to show emotion and also to be seen in massive rooms. So some painters I’ve learned to appreciate like Domenichino’s Maiden with Unicorn and Francois Boucher seem to have often depicted 13-15 year old girls as the ideal for their pastoral scenes, while others painted older women. I also notice that medieval depictions of maidens being sought after by knights look about 13/14, which was about the age of marriage and consummation among the aristocracy at that time. Then in the Victorian age the models generally get older, though by no means all of them many of them are that young still.
About big breasts, I read that they are a more modern, mostly Western fetish. But for an ideal closer to modern taste, the rockstars of the 60s and 70s were mostly not chasing 20 year olds but had their target firmly on early to late teens while they themselves were in their early to late twenties and older. Notice at the same time some of them had officially anointed girlfriends who were older.
Not liking ‘silly’ young girls for their personalities is also a matter of taste. Personally, I would prefer the wide eyed joy and occasional ‘silliness’ that comes with a pubescent. If I was looking for philosophical agony in a relationship I would be jerking off in the meanwhile to a photo of Ludwig Wittgenstein.
As for the island business, why should a man be put on an island for his sexual feelings? Why is the man the problem? The male isn’t the problem in society, the female is the problem. Ugly and older women should be put on an island.
So there is a whole world thank god outside Anglo cuntries.
I’m a bit drunk so what I meant by pubescence was 12-15ish. Thanks
Anyone sentenced for child molestation or CP could go live there. Nonoffending pedophiles could go live there if they are worried about future actions. Normal men who banged teenage girls and are headed for to pedoinsanity of modern prison culture could go there. Etc. penal colony. They could work, have industries, etc. They could even have visitors. No one under 18.
Robert strikes me as very similar to our MAP friends, where he thinks he can retain the support of some friendly women by appealing to their reasonableness. I would ask Robert, how’s that working out for you so far? Because it seems like, based on what you’ve written, it’s working out horribly for you. So why not go all the way if you’re going to be treated badly by trying to appeal to “reasonable women” anyway?
“Silly teenage girls” is another feminist shaming tactic meant to coincide with the argument that men shouldn’t be attracted to teen girls because they “don’t have anything in common with them.” The obvious true counter arguments are 1) having things in common is not required or even desired for sexual attraction, and 2) women are silly at every age, so if “silliness” makes your dick limp, that is something you’ll have to deal with personally. I’d add that the number of men who would honestly report that “silliness” overrides their attraction to young teenage girls would be far less than the 20% Robert quotes as having an abnormal sexuality that requires being put on a prison island.
As for this narrow hips, nipple size, and weird kid body gibberish, it all falls under the same feminist junk meant to shame men and disqualify younger female competition. Obviously older women have all these flaws and worse. And we’ve already successfully challenged the myth about bad teen pregnancy; we now have studies that show the younger the better in terms of health outcomes.
Let’s do what Wolfenkind said and put ugly, fat, and old females on a cushy prison island instead, and let’s see how many of our problems instantly disappear.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I’m not trying to get any female support on this but I already have some. I’m pretty well known. I have an image to preserve so I can’t be pushing extreme stuff. I need to push for the minimum reasonable demand. That way I can look back and say I’m only pushing something very mild. If I got more extreme I’d turn into Yee or Eivind. ? they are silly. I have a lot of experience so I know what they are like.
But 16+ are more mature than people think. Grown women are far less silly than giggly teenyboppers. Have you guys dated much? Women are irrational, yes, but silly and giggly like a teenage girl, no. Nope women do not have hips too narrow to optimally deliver a baby. Women do not have bizarro nonraised nipples.
Women do not have weird gawky 15 year old girl bodies. Their bodies are like that because not all the parts of the body mature at the same rate. Although all men react at a high level to 15-17 year old girls, so I’m not sure what you are getting at. Younger the better? So a 25% chance of getting your insides ripped up is a successful outcome.
23 YO women have weird bodies these days because either 1/ they haven’t got pregnant yet, which is completely screwed up and unnatural. 23 year old women should already have pumped out some babies.
Or 2/ they have had a pregnancy, in which case their body is very rarely ever the same again.
Nature wants us to fall in love with young girls and pair bond with them. It’s not so important for a 23 year old female to be sexually attractive, because for most of human history she would already be locked in with a husband or permanent, protective mate.
As for this “teens are giggly” nonsense, it’s not really relevant. We’re discussing what age is physically more attractive from an evo psy point of view. And one minute you’re saying that preference for teen girls is purely psychological, and then you’re saying that your (alleged) dislike of teen girls is psychological.
Snore.
“Although all men react at a high level to 15-17 year old girls, so I’m not sure what you are getting at.”
Answer:
“I just want to eliminate these stupid laws so men CAN date these girls legally if they choose.”
Let’s try to keep this page for discussion as to what age is most attractive for normal men and we can discuss what should be legal and not elsewhere. I know they are very much closely related and this blog is principally about the criminalization of normal male sexuality, but it would be better to focus on the one issue here. I expect (if I keep working on the page) that it will eventually get quite a lot of traffic from people Googling this question.
Robert Lindsay commented on the news article: “It’s 100% proven fact that women’s hips only widen enough to optimally carry a baby at 18-19. That’s proven medical science. Also the breasts continue to develop. 16 year old girls’ tits are weird! Look at Tracy Lords’ tits. The areolas are way too big because the nippies are erect yet. Females only get erect nipples sometime after 16.
I would think that pointed nipples are more arousing than depressed ones. Females absolutely continue to develop after age 16. They even grow an inch or two.”
I replied that I’ve never seen Traci Lord’s 16 YO tits and can’t now because it’s illegal, but that 20 million or more UK men were worshipping the 16 YO breasts of Samantha Fox and others on Page 3 of The Sun every day in the 1980s.
As regards when girls reach adult height:
“During female puberty, people tend to have a major growth spurt between the ages of 10 and 14. Most will reach their adult height by the time they are 14 or 15 years old.”
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320668
Robert Linsay also claims that “it’s 100% proven fact that women’s hips only widen enough to optimally carry a baby at 18-19. ”
I replied: “No it’s not. I pointed to studies here quite recently that showed that 16 and 17 year old girls are LESS likely to suffer pregnancy problems than women in their 30s.
Further, any higher teen miscarriage rates are likely due to socioeconomic factors, as adolescent teen girls getting pregnant are invariably from the lowest groups.
Another factor is first time pregnancies might be more likely to suffer miscarriage, therefore it’s not the age that is the cause.
I don’t know if you looked at the waist hip chart I posted but an 19 year old’s average hip is no bigger than a 17 year olds. Most girls reach physical maturity at 16 or 17. Also note that the pregnancy is 9 months after impregnation (the girl will be almost a year older).
Ask yourself why nature has allowed girls to become pregnant at 11 or 12, to begin developing secondary sexual characteristics, and yet not intend for her to be pregnant (or be sexually attractive to males) until 6 or 7 years later.”
Also consider that even if it were true that a 15 year old girl was less likely to produce a healthy offspring than a 23 year old, the 15 year old has potentially 6 or 7 more goes at it until she even reaches 23, whereas the 23 year old will be 30 after 7 years, at which age her fertility decreases rapidly and her chances of miscarriage rise steeply.
There’s just more “water at the well” with a 15 year old girl than a 23 year old.
Sure 16 and 17 year old girls have a lower rate of complications than WOMEN IN THEIR 30’s. Well nature made women most fertile and the least likely to have complications at age 23. I’d always heard that a female’s hips widen around 18-19. I know that you only see those weird skinny with curves irrational bodies around 16-18, and around 19-20 you don’t see them anymore.
I know the Hmong in Laos don’t like sex before 18 but once they hit 18-20 they let young men and women gang out together in a sort of separate society and go off into the jungle at night. They are allowed to have sex there away from adults. They Hmomg it’s not good for females to have sex before 19-20, presumably due to health reasons. I told my mother that women’s hips widen around 18-19, and she agreed with me.
So do the Hmong apparently. Girls are able to get pregnant in the modern era at age 13, but pregnancy is dangerous before age 15.
If wide hips were so imortant, that’s what men would desire most, and the waist-to-hip ratio would be irrelevant, rather than one of the key and universal criteria that men are stimulated by. Men aren’t interested in massive hips, rather a nubile, hour glass figure.
Think about how repulsed most men are by anorexic females, or most men by grossly overweight females. These are strong signals that the woman is unhealthy and can’t birth and rear offspring. Yet Robert Lindsey claims both that 14 year olds can’t give birth, and that men do find them attractive (as long as they don’t “prefer them”). Why haven’t we evolved sexual disgust at teen girls in the same way we have at anorexic females? Maybe nature knew that the STU and paedocrites would come along and impose rules against sex with teens (after 100,000 years)?
It’s true. Pregnancy in a 14 year old girl is dangerous. In fact I think the government should mandate abortions for all girls under 15. 25% of girls under 15 will get ripped up inside if they deliver to term. Their insides are too small to successfully deliver a baby without problems. This is standard medical knowledge. I’m shocked you didn’t know this stuff.
This whole upto 15 yo girls having little to no tits is just silly. I have a younger sister who is almost a decade younger than me. I remember thinking when she just turned 13yo that she is already quite developed breastwise. I also gave tuitions to a wide range of age groups(from early high schools to late college) at one point. So I have a fairly high amount of familiarity with body structure respective to age. Not every girl, but a large percentage of girls are already highly developed by 13-14, and by 15-16 majority of girls essentially look like adults.
Breasts only grow to full size after pregnancy, but the basic development is already done by early teens. I don’t have a strong boob fetish, and in general I don’t understand the societal craze about it. I am merely stating some observations. Also, girls in general look far closer to their legally adult self at a much younger age compared to boys – at least 2-3 years earlier. Most girls are already within 1 inch of their final height at 13-14. While for boys it is around 15-16-17.
Robert Lindsey seems to think that there is some kind of fixed and uniformly linear development for all girls. So no 15 year old has developed breasts, but every 16 year old has. I’m very surprised he can think this way, given he claims to have been a high school teacher (not to mention banging dozens of 16 year old girls and still getting propositioned by underage teens). Just today I passed by a class of German teens on a trip. Presumably they were the same class/year, as the majority looked around 14, but there were several girls who looked like 11 YO kids, and some who were “bigger” (in every way) than most fully grown women.
I agree with you. Someone here posted a link to a chart (from some old study) a few weeks earlier that actually stated that on average early mid teens are the most attractive . That one alligns with your waist to hip ratio theory . Although no doubt 23 year olds are also highly attractive. After all, 23 is not 53.
? 13 year old girls are flat as fuck bro. Lot of them almost have no tits at all. I’ve seen nudes of them. And 13-14 year old girls have those lame stick like boy bodies with no curves.
I’m sure you’ve researched a lot of 13 YO nudes.
Feminists actually don’t want you to see what an actual legal minor teen looks like naked. May be because they envy a teen body and are scared of comparisons with a younger person?
One of the strangest things is that in many places the age of consent for sex is lower, like 15 or 16, but the age of consent for being filmed nude is still 18 or 21. It doesn’t make any sense.
Actual sex actually has consequences – you can get STDs, get unwanted pregnancies, lose virginity. What consequences does being filmed nude have? Some people are not comfortable with their own nudity, and they wouldn’t consent anyway. Others are perfectly fine with being filmed nude. So why can’t they consent to being filmed nude?
They will not even allow girls to pose nude for art and there are loads of restrictions on even medical images . The only videos/images still somewhat easily available where you can find nude girls of any age are family nudist/naturist videos/photos, but the number of familly nudists have reduced drastically because of the hysteria.
Nudity being made illegal serves only one purpose – to control and raise the price of sexual gratification for men.
This is 100% true. The overwhelming majority of “child [hag threatening] porn” is literally happy young teens sexually experimenting and having fun with themselves/other men.
That’s also why the FBI had to pass around a bulletin to its employees who are clearly getting turned on by looking at underage Epstein girls. The bulletin itself is some real 1984 shit, an attempt to both make you feel shame about your boner if you don’t already, and scrambling to redefine your boner as anything but a fun, normal and natural reaction to sexual joy.
https://x.com/mtracey/status/2098520959766454507
Notice, the FBI has been investigating disgusting sexual murder crimes for decades, yet no one was ever turned on by those real crimes enough to circulate a bulletin about it.
Feminists don’t want men to know any truth. I see Robert Lindsay’s boneheaded comment that he supports the German feminist gibberish/artificial age of consent increase for “taking advantage of the lack of sexual determination of a young girl,” similar to the law in feminist shithole Argentina. This just means older women believe younger girls have less experience and more warmth when negotiating what they can get from men in exchange for their pussy, so they undermine the interests of jaded older women.
Whether or not that’s true (and there are clearly many outliers as noted in your post about young female competency), calling men child abusers and pedophiles for only a potential difference in negotiation power that undermines older women’s interests is a despicable, enraging slander that deserves complete contempt.
This is false. The FBI hardly gets involved with teen bullshit. They have their hands full dealing with the real thing. 98.6% of the CP they go after is hardcore porn involving adults with little kids. And they can’t even deal with that as it’s a tidal wave. You have no idea how much of this shit is out there.
Yeah you’re right, Robert. The FBI only has a “Project Safe Childhood” task force that persecutes 18+ year old men for any sexual activity involving girls under 18 since 2006, working together with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [Hags] founded by cretin John Walsh, who grifts off of his dead 6 year old son by ruining the lives of men with teenage girlfriends inside and outside of the USA (also with help from the Dept. of Homeland [Hagland] Security, which officially defines anti-feminism as a terrorist threat).
Besides Michael Tracey’s 1984-style Epstein bulletin example, a simple Google search of the news reveals story after story of FBI investigations and convictions involving men’s natural love of young teenage girls, from Disney cruises, to teachers traveling to Colombia to bang willing teens, to Texas preachers being entrapped by agents posing as young teens, to everyday men in Kentucky and Michigan downloading pictures of young teens via peer to peer programs, and Pennsylvania state representatives doing the same. The list of male victims is endless, and each conviction comes with decades of prison time and sex offender kill list restrictions.
Don’t even try to virtue signal with your bullshit that the FBI only pursues men who want to bang toddlers. However big your “tidal wave” of toddler porn is, it is a tiny fraction of what the FBI investigates and prosecutes as teenage “child [hag threatening] pornography”.
I’m positive you’re so confident in your statement that the FBI never gets involved with crimes involving teen girls that you’re on peer to peer services right now (no VPN) trading pictures of 13 year olds, for your research of course. In the miniscule, tiny off-chance the FBI comes to your house, you can just tell them young teens have weird bodies and giggle too much, so no man would ever be sexually interested in them, I’m sure the agents will agree with you and leave immediately, just like every other case in the news.
You read of cases of men going down on CP charges from the FBI for having images of TEENAGE GIRLS on their drives? Prove it. Site some cases. I realize you have a severe issue with facts and science. I read that 98.6% of FBI CP arrests involve hardcore sex with prepubescent girls.
I think the source was Kenneth Lanning’s FBI document on child molesters. There’s so much bad stuff out there I doubt if they bother with teen stuff. Plus you have to prove they could not possibly be 18, and that’s hard to do.
This is the last time I’ll approve a comment (anybody) under this article that isn’t directly relevant to the question of what age is a female most attractive. If Anon69 wants to reply to it, please just quote him and reply under the news article. However, as I’ve had to reply to it to say what I just said, I may as well say you’re talking nonsense. I read every day of some sad US perp caught generating AI nudes from photos of high-school teens and getting decades in prison.
Also, can we compare the competence of teenage girls with legally adult women in categories other than attractiveness?
This year the female athlete of 2026 Asian Games was 13 yo Chinese swimmer Yu Zidi. She broke several asian records and was quite close to breaking some world records, and I am not talking about age-based records.
Is this her peak? Probably not. But is she competent? Absolutely!
Even younger aged females seem to be competent in brain games. The brain seems to mature earlier than the body. Indeed, that makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective. 12 yo Judit Polgar was the number 1 female chess player in the world(ranked better than any other legally adult female of that time). Was her peak at 12yo? No. Her overall best ranking and rating came at ages around mid to late twenties because in chess knowledge does matter. But was she competent at 12? Absolutely! Yet feminists want us to believe everybody is a child till 25 or more.