36" 24" 36"

2»

Replies

  • mi_nina_lola
    mi_nina_lola Posts: 767 Member
    i had those measurements when i was 16. not anymore :D
  • MelanieCN77
    MelanieCN77 Posts: 4,047 Member
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-size-barbies-shocking-dimensions-photo-would-she-be-anorexic/

    Stuff of nightmares :D
  • NadNight
    NadNight Posts: 794 Member
    I’m 34-22-35 but am at the bottom of the healthy weight range for my height
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    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.

    Yes, I'm seeing 37-24-36 for Raquel Welch on the first three sites like this I checked https://www.celebsfacts.com/raquel-welch/

    Pixee Fox, wow, sad. This is from her second appearance on "Botched", which is apparently a show about botched plastic surgeries.

    There's some lingerie, surgical photos, and language some might find offensive:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnP_hadA3k8
  • imxnianne
    imxnianne Posts: 216 Member
    It’s all genetics. No one will ever be the same size. What matters is how content you’ve been in life goals. If that made sense. My lower waist line was 25 and that was already at a perfect weight for my height and frame. I was 36, 25, 34. It never was achievable due to my genetics. I was at 19% body fat as well. I’m now 36,28,35. 12lbs more than I was. Some get more build up as well in the mid section due to birth.
  • IAmWomanHearMeRoar15
    IAmWomanHearMeRoar15 Posts: 46 Member
    I don't care about my measurments; I want to be healthy and happy.
  • Mr_Healthy_Habits
    Mr_Healthy_Habits Posts: 12,588 Member
    IAmWomanHearMeRoar15 wrote: »
    I don't care about my measurments; I want to be healthy and happy.

    I love your id 👍🏼
  • MeteoraTitanium
    MeteoraTitanium Posts: 102 Member
    I have narrow hips, 33" I'll never have perfect stats, I'm not built that way!
  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    The smallest my waist has ever been (since adulthood) was 25", its now 27",
    I'm 34 - 27 - 36, (5ft 2)

    WAS 38 - 31 - 40 prior to weight loss
  • Vune
    Vune Posts: 674 Member
    "Imperfect" at 37 - 26 - 40, but costumers like working with me, sooo...
  • Sweatspiration
    Sweatspiration Posts: 33 Member
    rainbow198 wrote: »
    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!

    Ahhhh tryna get back to this. It was all leggings and dresses because if my thighs/butt fit, my waist area was just a disaster!
  • GeminiLady159
    GeminiLady159 Posts: 120 Member
    I just measured my ELEVEN YEAR OLD for Christmas sizing this weekend and her waist is 24”. She’s tall and slim and sized as she should be-as a child. So...yeah.
  • RelCanonical
    RelCanonical Posts: 3,882 Member
    edited December 2019
    GeminiLady159 wrote: »
    I just measured my ELEVEN YEAR OLD for Christmas sizing this weekend and her waist is 24”. She’s tall and slim and sized as she should be-as a child. So...yeah.

    She's probably more of a straight shape, as most women (or in this case, girls) are. Hourglass shapes are rarer but they do exist and a 24'' waist is slim but not unobtainable.
  • soniasharma2
    soniasharma2 Posts: 15 Member
    Im 36-27-36 (but Im 5'2"). At some point before having my twins I had a 24" waist, but everything else was smaller, I was 35 lbs lighter and honestly I was probably "skinny fat" since I didnt do any kind of strength training as I do now. My mom has a similar body shape, and its always been hard finding clothes that fit right in the waist that arent at extremes of baggy or skin tight. Growing up I had a lot of body dysmorphia, all I wanted to be was tall (obviously not happening), thin and "straight" and I was embarrassed by my curvy figure. Its kind of amusing how that has changed in terms of whats considered fashionable (although it is easier to buy clothes, as there are more options for all body types in general, including curvy petites). In my not so wise old 40s I realize that whether or not my given body type is "fashionable" or not doesnt really mean squat, but I can do the best what I have.
  • solarpower03
    solarpower03 Posts: 12,161 Member
    Women need to be less focused on such numbers. Realistically, any woman (or man) without big belly looks good physically. Rest is your personality and character.
  • tcunbeliever
    tcunbeliever Posts: 8,219 Member
    I was 36-24-35 before children...currently 36-29-39...I could definitely lose about 3" off my waist if I reduced my body fat...I'm working on it...currently it's coming off the backs of my thighs and lower booty instead of my waist, but hey, it's a goal and a reason to keep on trying.

    I do track my measurements because for me they matter way more than the scale in terms of a health metric. I'm almost 50 lbs heavier now than I was before children, but much of that added weight is muscle and I'm sure I'm healthier now than I was then...the scale can't always give you a good picture of health...measurements, photos, body fat % and other metrics, they all play a role.
  • rosegreen12
    rosegreen12 Posts: 35 Member
    I'm 5'7.5", 177 lbs, medium frame, 44-36-45 (I don't remember what I was at my thinnest since that was 30 yrs ago, but I remember I was 127 lbs and looked anorexic). I know that I felt my best in 1998 at 160 lbs. so that's goal, but I won't mind going on down to 155 lbs. I want to stay huggable for my grandchildren and I notice the youngest ones have trouble getting their heads comfortable on my shoulder even now.
  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,254 Member
    I’m 34-26-37 at 5 feet four and a half inches and 123 pounds. I was 34-24-34 when I was about 18. Genetics for sure, as my mom also had a small waist. BUT...I have “tree-trunk” legs. Short and sturdy rather than long, willowy and shapely. So it’s always something. I love my legs, they are strong and get me where I want to go while hiking, backpacking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing and spinning.
  • RelCanonical
    RelCanonical Posts: 3,882 Member
    whmscll wrote: »
    I’m 34-26-37 at 5 feet four and a half inches and 123 pounds. I was 34-24-34 when I was about 18. Genetics for sure, as my mom also had a small waist. BUT...I have “tree-trunk” legs. Short and sturdy rather than long, willowy and shapely. So it’s always something. I love my legs, they are strong and get me where I want to go while hiking, backpacking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing and spinning.

    Those are my legs too. BMI of 24 and still can't fit into regular calf boots lol.
  • paigeanderson725
    paigeanderson725 Posts: 2 Member
    Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
    Only if she's 5'3" 😏...
    I kid...

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

    Sir mix a lot was the first thing that came to mind for me too! 😂

Categories