With the growing demand for procedures aimed at enhancing the female body profile—particularly those targeting the gluteal region (liposculpture, gluteoplasty, and the Brazilian butt lift)—there is renewed interest in practical morphological reference points that can support aesthetic analysis and preoperative planning. Although “beauty” cannot be reduced to a single formula, an aesthetically pleasing female buttock is commonly perceived as the product of a near-geometric, harmonious balance among shape, volume, and projection. Over recent years, we have explored several of these elements in a series of studies,1–6 seeking to describe recurring visual features and their relative contribution to overall gluteal attractiveness. From our review of a broad spectrum of images and body types—spanning neoclassical sculpture through contemporary mainstream models—we have repeatedly noted a simple geometric pattern that may be useful as a conceptual guide. Specifically, the outline of an aesthetically pleasing female buttock can often be inscribed within an ovoid whose major axis is oriented at approximately 50 degrees relative to the vertical. When one draws the tangent line to the inferomedial border of this ovoid—corresponding to the infragluteal crease—that line also forms an angle of roughly 50 degrees with the vertical midline (Fig. 1A). Paired with its contralateral mirror line, this configuration creates the apex of an upward-pointing arrow (Fig. 1B). We propose that, at a preattentive level, this “arrow” may act as a directional cue that concentrates visual attention toward the genital region. In our observations, the apex of this construct tends to align with the vertical line passing through the midpoint of the infragluteal fold.Fig. 1.: In the ideal contour of an aesthetically pleasing female buttock, an ovoid (blue) can be conceptually superimposed, with its major axis oriented at 50 degrees relative to the vertical. A, The line tangent to the inferomedial border of the ovoid (yellow) consequently forms an angle of 50 degrees with the vertical midline (white). B, Together with its contralateral mirror line, it creates the apex of an upward-pointing arrow. The tip of this arrow should ideally lie within the vertical line passing through the midpoint of the infragluteal fold (dotted black line).This geometric description remains anchored in anatomy. The infragluteal crease lies beneath the ischial tuberosity and is delimited superiorly by the inferior border of the gluteus maximus and inferiorly by the insertions of the biceps femoris and semitendinosus muscles at the ischial tuberosity. In practical terms, we therefore suggest 2 clinically intuitive points: (1) an aesthetically pleasing infragluteal fold can be approximated by a line oriented at about 50 degrees relative to the vertical midline; and (2) the fold should not extend beyond the lateral margin of the semitendinosus insertion, remaining within the medial half of the posterior thigh. Importantly, these observations do not exist in isolation. They fit within the broader framework described extensively by Mendieta and Sood7 and Mendieta and Stuzin,8 whose widely used approach to gluteal contouring is grounded in careful evaluation of frame type, gluteal muscle morphology, and the relationship between skeletal “frame” and soft tissues, with practical implications for aesthetic analysis, preoperative markings, and augmentation strategy. The characteristics we emphasize are most consistent with the A-shaped (heart-shaped) buttock, which is frequently perceived as aesthetically desirable. This Viewpoint has clear limitations. The proposed angles, tangents, and geometric constructs are not presented as universal norms, but as a recurring visual heuristic derived from aesthetic observation and from our previously published conceptual frameworks.1–6 We did not apply systematic image-selection criteria, measure interobserver agreement, or validate these constructs against outcomes or patient-reported measures. Moreover, aesthetic judgments are intrinsically influenced by cultural context and individual preference, and the infragluteal region exhibits substantial anatomical, ethnic, and cultural variability—factors that argue strongly against rigid, algorithmic application of geometric rules in operative planning. Future work should test these concepts using quantitative morphometric analysis and correlation with patient-reported outcomes. Finally, the suggestion that the “arrow” configuration unconsciously directs attention toward the genital region should be considered a hypothesis; it would be of interest to see whether translational studies in neuroaesthetics and visual neuroscience can evaluate this proposed perceptual mechanism. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
Raposio et al. (Fri,) studied this question.