36" 24" 36"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/life-size-barbies-shocking-dimensions-photo-would-she-be-anorexic/

Stuff of nightmares

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

I don't care about my measurments; I want to be healthy and happy.

I have narrow hips, 33" I'll never have perfect stats, I'm not built that way!

"Imperfect" at 37 - 26 - 40, but costumers like working with me, sooo...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! 😂