36" 24" 36"

ReenieHJ

Is that only a real measurement with photo shopping? I've never been close even at my best. If you wouldn't mind sharing your measurements, go for it. But if you'd rather not, then you just wasted 8 seconds of your life.
Last time I took out my tape measure I was 34.5" 29" 37.5". Definitely not the perfect Barbie doll image.

SweatsOnSunday

Sounds wonderful to me. How bright are your eyes? How witty is your brain? Do you have a mischievous smile? Are you kind? That's what counts.

WandaVaughn

The only person I know of with that particular set of measurements is the woman in "Brick House" by the Commodores. She's mighty mighty!

rainbow198

My mom had those measurements back in the day. She still has a nice figure, in shape and looks amazing for her age too!

I'm 36-27-38. Very happy with that, although shopping for clothes can be a problem at times. I keep my tailor busy!

J_NY_Z

I'm not sure you should base your body image on song lyrics from 1977.

RelCanonical

Some people are just hourglass figures and it's genetically attributed. Not much you can do, most people won't even notice. It's not like your measurements flash up each time someone glances at you, and height really makes a difference as well on whether those stats are even obtainable. It's like saying the perfect weight is 130 pounds. For me that's the edge of overweight, for some taller people it's the edge of underweight.

mom23mangos

I've been waiting for this thread title since I've been on MFP. The answer according to Sir Mix-A-lot is: only if she's 5'3!!

And if no one gets that shame on them.

sardelsa

Measurements alone don't tell you everything, you can have two people with similar measurements but different height, weight, distribution etc. Last year before getting pregnant mine were something like 35-27-38, now my measurements are a bit larger now, around 37-29-39 now but I still feel great.

ReenieHJ

RelCanonical wrote: »

Some people are just hourglass figures and it's genetically attributed. Not much you can do, most people won't even notice. It's not like your measurements flash up each time someone glances at you, and height really makes a difference as well on whether those stats are even obtainable. It's like saying the perfect weight is 130 pounds. For me that's the edge of overweight, for some taller people it's the edge of underweight.

Haha, I picture something like one of the MPH signs flashing as people walk by. TG there's no such thing!

pjwrt

RelCanonical wrote: »

... It's not like your measurements flash up each time someone glances at you....

They do, they do. Back in my single days, before my wife was looking over my shoulder...how does she do that?

COGypsy

Barbie is an aspirational fitness goal? In 2019? That may be the saddest thing I've heard yet today.

fitnessguy266

SweatsOnSunday wrote: »

Sounds wonderful to me. How bright are your eyes? How witty is your brain? Do you have a mischievous smile? Are you kind? That's what counts.

There ya go Not the superficial stuff.

MikePTY

I have not been able to get 36-24-36 either 😭

MelanieCN77

I'm 133 at 5'5 and in ok shape and I am 36, 30, 36.5 as of last measure. Just don't have the curve at my waist, never have. There's literally nothing that is gonna make me shave 4" off my waist and nowhere else.

Who are these measurements for, what's the goal once there? What's the thing that's going to start happening at this magic ratio?

dapunks

Why would you want to be?

Soccermavrick

Wait, someone actually thinks Barbie has "REAL" measurements? This is the problem with society, all of this fake standards. A) Confidence is far sexier. Anyone can have confidence in themselves, once they throw the garbage out and love themselves. C) The body might break necks, but the brain, the person is what matters in the end. D) To me fitness is all about finding the BEST you. (And that is defined by you, based on what you want for yourself. IF that is a bodybuilder, great. A powerlifter, great. A woman, great. You define that. Not some plastic doll.)

RelCanonical

Soccermavrick wrote: »

Wait, someone actually thinks Barbie has "REAL" measurements? This is the problem with society, all of this fake standards. A) Confidence is far sexier. Anyone can have confidence in themselves, once they throw the garbage out and love themselves. C) The body might break necks, but the brain, the person is what matters in the end. D) To me fitness is all about finding the BEST you. (And that is defined by you, based on what you want for yourself. IF that is a bodybuilder, great. A powerlifter, great. A woman, great. You define that. Not some plastic doll.)

Barbie's "real life" measurements at 5'9'' was 39-18-34, which is not realistic. 36-24-36 are realistic measurements for a true hourglass figure, but most women aren't. Marilyn Monroe was 35-22-35.

That being said, I do agree with you. A person's attitude is what people notice, and people generally like to see that you care for yourself both physically and mentally.

collectingblues

MelanieCN77 wrote: »

I'm 133 at 5'5 and in ok shape and I am 36, 30, 36.5 as of last measure. Just don't have the curve at my waist, never have. There's literally nothing that is gonna make me shave 4" off my waist and nowhere else.

Who are these measurements for, what's the goal once there? What's the thing that's going to start happening at this magic ratio?

Truth. I'm ~34 ~27 ~36 -- 34, 26.5, and 34 if I flex in -- and there's no way I could get to 24 at waist without either shaving off part of my rib cage, or removing some internal organs. I'm pretty comfortably in a size 4 or 6, consistently, and honestly, while I'd like to be a consistent unflexed ~26 at waist, it is what it is...

ReenieHJ

SweatsOnSunday wrote: »

Sounds wonderful to me. How bright are your eyes? How witty is your brain? Do you have a mischievous smile? Are you kind? That's what counts.

I know Honest, I do. And I also know Barbie has unrealistic measurements. Lol Tho I can still want a couple more " in the bust dept.
Some posts are meant to be a little humorous; guess I miss the mark some days.

jeagogo

I've done costume design for local theatres and colleges for 10+ years so I've measured a lot of people and have never encountered anyone with these measurements. I've actually only met one adult woman with a waist measurement smaller than 24".
I'm 5'8" and 40-30-42 (at my smallest I was 37-27-39), and the large different between my waist and hips is actually a pain for clothing shopping because things that fit my hips well are too large on my waist. Clothing just isn't made for this level of curvy, and never was. Even vintage fitted "wiggle" dresses from the 1950s and 1960s (when these measurements were the "ideal") are too tight in the hips when they fit my waist.

DancingMoosie

I'm only 32" on top, so ☹️

etherealanwar

I feel like a lot of women cannot achieve such a small waist without being near underweight or within the underweight category.

lgfrie

I believe Barbie was supposedly 38-20-34 when they did the math to extrapolate from the doll to an actual woman-sized woman. It might've been 38-19-34. Obviously not an attainable goal, that's why she's a doll and not a person.

I seem to remember that Raquel Welsh back in the sexy cavewoman outfit days was touted as being the perfect 36-24-36. It's a body shape you are born with or aren't. Mostly "aren't". Unless you remove some ribs.

Speaking of which, there is a woman who had ribs removed (and a hell of a lot of other surgery) to become Barbie. Her name is Pixee Fox, I recommend googling - I'd post a pic but they're all NSFW. The lesson I get from her grotesque pictures is to learn to be happy with your body.

vanityy99

Cute”-cute”-cute”

My measurements.

vanityy99

DancingMoosie wrote: »

I'm only 32" on top, so ☹️

Same. It’s not that baadddd

Mr_Healthy_Habits

Only if she's 5'3" 😏...
I kid...

But for men it's shoulders/waist = 1.6 (the golden ratio)

ReenieHJ

lgfrie wrote: »

I believe Barbie was supposedly 38-20-34 when they did the math to extrapolate from the doll to an actual woman-sized woman. It might've been 38-19-34. Obviously not an attainable goal, that's why she's a doll and not a person.

I seem to remember that Raquel Welsh back in the sexy cavewoman outfit days was touted as being the perfect 36-24-36. It's a body shape you are born with or aren't. Mostly "aren't". Unless you remove some ribs.

Speaking of which, there is a woman who had ribs removed (and a hell of a lot of other surgery) to become Barbie. Her name is Pixee Fox, I recommend googling - I'd post a pic but they're all NSFW. The lesson I get from her grotesque pictures is to learn to be happy with your body.

There's also a human Ken doll guy who's had so much plastic surgery that he's ruining his body, his nose is on the brink of collapsing, he can't breathe right. So sad really. It's an obsession with him to the point of slowly killing himself. Why are we so obsessed with perfect images that we try to obtain the impossible?

Talan79

Is the 36” over the boob or under?
My waist is a 25, hips are 37. I’m 37 over the boob less under. Kind of close to those measurements. One inch over on all 3.
(Edited bc of typo)

RelCanonical

Talan79 wrote: »

Is the 36” over the boob or under?
My waist is a 25, hips are 37. I’m 37 over the boob less under. Kind of close to those measurements. One inch over on all 3.
(Edited bc of typo)

Over the boob. Sometimes you'll hear it referred to as a "bust measurement" and under the boob would be the "band measurement"

AnnPT77

32.5", 29.5", 38" at 5'5", weight mid-130s pounds.

Not sure why I'd care; last time I'd measured/recorded was July 2018. Not much change since, BTW.

That's bust measurement if I had a bust (post bilateral mastectomies, no reconstruction, but possibly inflated a bit by nice-ish lats for a li'l ol' lady, age 64, if I do say so myself), and widest point of pelvis.

I like my body. It can do fun stuff.

ookoolady

Don't forget that up until the 1960's, women often wore corsets and girdles that artificially gave them an hourglass figure.