Healthy Clothing Sizes/Body Sizes

[WCSGarland]

"You serious?" Her eyebrows rose in exasperation. "You're really gonna tell me that this is eight inches...?"

Nope... that's two inches, but I use it like it was eight.

 

[alohadave]

"You serious?" Her eyebrows rose in exasperation. "You're really gonna tell me that this is eight inches...?"

Bill scrunched up his face. He didn't realize that the size of his penis was unaffected by the size of his belly. He'd never measured it--who does that? Accustomed to lying about his weight, he naturally lied about the size of his dick as well.

 

[StillStunned]

at least you can trust an inch to be an inch

Unless it's a Subway inch.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Unless it's a Subway inch.

And clothes sizes purporting to be inches, like breast band sizes or waists on jeans, aren't any more accurate.

The husband was most disappointed when he realised that fitting into 34 jeans didn't mean he still had a 34 waist. Though he nearly does, again, now.

Having done the maths to figure out what 50lb is in English (3 stone 5 or 22.5kg), I wouldn't necessarily call someone saying that was 'a bit overweight' a liar.

I guess it depends on how much understatement is used in your local dialect (for me 'this needs a bit of work' means 'you need to do a total fucking rewrite'!), but also depending on height. For me, if I were a typical heathy weight, adding 50lb would have me still with an overweight not obese BMI, and I'm not very tall.

For reference, Martine McCutcheon, like Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones' Diary, isn't fat at all but both have round faces unlike most film stars, and aren't as thin as your typical film star. Hollywood fat, similar to Hollywood ugly where the actress wears glasses and has hair in a bun.

 

[TheLobster]

but also depending on height.

If you take someone close to average female height, i.e., somewhere between 1.5 m to 1.7 m, an extra 22.5 kg can easily take them from the normal range (BMI <25) and well into obese (>30).

I haven’t done the exact math, but running this function for a few dozen sample values:

def foo(h, w):
    return w / (h ** 2), (w + 22.5) / (h ** 2)

you can easily find numbers where adding this much weight takes you from BMI 24 all the way to 32+.

50lbs is really quite a lot to sweep under the rug and dismiss as only ‘a bit’.

 

[NaughteeDragon]

"You serious?" Her eyebrows rose in exasperation. "You're really gonna tell me that this is eight inches...?"

She told me to give her 8 inches and hurt her. So I fucked her twice and hit her with a brick. — Andrew Dice Clay, comedian

 

[yowser]

The husband was most disappointed when he realised that fitting into 34 jeans didn't mean he still had a 34 waist. Though he nearly does, again, now.

Wait, you mean I don't either?

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

The husband was most disappointed when he realised that fitting into 34 jeans didn't mean he still had a 34 waist. Though he nearly does, again, now.

Aww, crap, are you serious? I thought that was what was supposed to make men's sizes better!!

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Wait, you mean I don't either?

Are you just wanting to come here so I put my hands round your waist to measure you?

 

[jehoram]

For what it's worth, this is what Cecil Adams wrote in response to a letter about bra sizes:

I can’t claim to have made the detailed study of the fine print in bra ads that you have, but the folks at Playtex tell me that the best-selling bra sizes these days are 34B and 36B. The next best-selling sizes, in order, are 36C, 34C, 38B, and 38C. Cecil’s informants in the field confirm that women have been getting somewhat larger over the last 10 or 15 years; at one point 34B substantially outsold 36B.


However, students of female architecture will note that this doesn’t mean that breasts per se are getting larger. (Breast size, of course, is indicated by the letter, not the number.) Rather, women are getting somewhat, ahh, broader through the chest and back, if you follow me.

There are several possible explanations for this: either women are in better physical condition than ever, and thus have better developed (i.e., wider) backs, or women are in worse shape than ever, and have become corpulent slabs of lard. (Incidentally, some say that breasts per se have gotten larger over the last 15 years due to the use of The Pill, but this apparently hasn’t had much impact on bra sales.)


As for the disappearance of sizes like AAA, it’s not because there aren’t any small-breasted women around anymore, but because such women frequently don’t bother to wear bras these days.

 

[crookedletter]

You can always expect sober, objective and thoughtful discourses on the diverse array of human body types by someone who employs the phrase "corpulent slabs of lard."

 

[joy_of_cooking]

50lb is in English (3 stone 5 or 22.5kg)

3 stone 8? I thought a stone was 14 lb not 15. Or are there multiple stones?

 

[joy_of_cooking]

for me 'this needs a bit of work' means 'you need to do a total fucking rewrite'!)

Welp now I want to go back and reread all the feedback you have ever given me...

I tend to be quite vocally critical when I read things for people, even when I'm on net enjoying myself.

 

[Auden James]

I'm trying to figure out the sizes for what folks would consider an attractive, but "average" sized woman.

This requirement almost reads like a contradiction in terms: (remarkably) attractive but (wishfully) "average" at the same time. How is this supposed to work, especially in today's America?

According to the 2015–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) the average BMI for American women (aged 20–49 years) is ~29.4 kg/m². This is a mere 0.6 kg/m² below the defined obesity range (BMI ≥ 30); for the 40–49 age group the average is actually already above the obesity threshold at ~30.7 kg/m².

Now, you may feel free to propagate obesity as the new "'average' sized" beauty standard (or at least "attractive"), but you would then have to accept to basically contradict everything we know from cross-cultural research about female human attractiveness.

 

[EmilyMiller]

This requirement almost reads like a contradiction in terms: (remarkably) attractive but (wishfully) "average" at the same time. How is this supposed to work, especially in today's America?

According to the 2015–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) the average BMI for American women (aged 20–49 years) is ~29.4 kg/m². This is a mere 0.6 kg/m² below the defined obesity range (BMI ≥ 30); for the 40–49 age group the average is actually already above the obesity threshold at ~30.7 kg/m².

Now, you may feel free to propagate obesity as the new "'average' sized" beauty standard (or at least "attractive"), but you would then have to accept to basically contradict everything we know from cross-cultural research about female human attractiveness.

From the Wikipedia article you cited:

Research indicates that heterosexual men tend to be attracted to young[60] and beautiful women[178] with bodily symmetry.[179] Rather than decreasing it, modernity has only increased the emphasis men place on women's looks.[180] Evolutionary psychologists attribute such attraction to an evaluation of the fertilitypotential in a prospective mate.[60]

This appears to be to do with what heterosexual men think - silly me, that’s the only relevant metric, right?

*flutters eyelashes*

 

[StillStunned]

Evolutionary psychologists attribute such attraction to an evaluation of the fertilitypotential in a prospective mate.[60]

One of the advantages of being an evolutionary dead end is that it liberates you from such shallow considerations.

 

[Auden James]

This appears to be to do with what heterosexual men think - silly me, that’s the only relevant metric, right?

Indeed, it is, as @SamanthaBehgs has made it clear herself that the male SOs of some of her FMC's friend group's female characters are supposed to have told the latter "they were too fat/ugly without makeup!"

Or would you claim to know the characters—or, at least, their sexual orientation—better than the story's author, @SamanthaBehgs, herself?

 

[EmilyMiller]

From the Wikipedia article you cited:

Research indicates that heterosexual men tend to be attracted to young[60] and beautiful women[178] with bodily symmetry.[179] Rather than decreasing it, modernity has only increased the emphasis men place on women's looks.[180] Evolutionary psychologists attribute such attraction to an evaluation of the fertilitypotential in a prospective mate.[60]

This appears to be to do with what heterosexual men think - silly me, that’s the only relevant metric, right?

*flutters eyelashes*

So citing Managerial and Decision Economics and The NY Times Book Review is not filling me with a massive amount of confidence. But maybe I’m too picky .

UPDATE: And one citation is to a book some dude published. Can’t wait to upload my novel here and watch the citations to it flood in.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

For what it's worth, this is what Cecil Adams wrote in response to a letter about bra sizes:

I can’t claim to have made the detailed study of the fine print in bra ads that you have, but the folks at Playtex tell me that the best-selling bra sizes these days are 34B and 36B. The next best-selling sizes, in order, are 36C, 34C, 38B, and 38C. Cecil’s informants in the field confirm that women have been getting somewhat larger over the last 10 or 15 years; at one point 34B substantially outsold 36B.


However, students of female architecture will note that this doesn’t mean that breasts per se are getting larger. (Breast size, of course, is indicated by the letter, not the number.) Rather, women are getting somewhat, ahh, broader through the chest and back, if you follow me.

There are several possible explanations for this: either women are in better physical condition than ever, and thus have better developed (i.e., wider) backs, or women are in worse shape than ever, and have become corpulent slabs of lard. (Incidentally, some say that breasts per se have gotten larger over the last 15 years due to the use of The Pill, but this apparently hasn’t had much impact on bra sales.)


As for the disappearance of sizes like AAA, it’s not because there aren’t any small-breasted women around anymore, but because such women frequently don’t bother to wear bras these days.

I was also just told that even though my boobs and circumference got smaller (YAY intentional weight loss) my cup size got bigger. I wonder if the switch from B to C (or vice versa) mentioned above also reflects a better understanding of those sorts of nuances of size?

This requirement almost reads like a contradiction in terms: (remarkably) attractive but (wishfully) "average" at the same time. How is this supposed to work, especially in today's America?

According to the 2015–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) the average BMI for American women (aged 20–49 years) is ~29.4 kg/m². This is a mere 0.6 kg/m² below the defined obesity range (BMI ≥ 30); for the 40–49 age group the average is actually already above the obesity threshold at ~30.7 kg/m².

Now, you may feel free to propagate obesity as the new "'average' sized" beauty standard (or at least "attractive"), but you would then have to accept to basically contradict everything we know from cross-cultural research about female human attractiveness.

Bouncing here off of what @EmilyMiller said as well about perspective in this research - it is my FMC describing these women as well as comparing not to the actual averages (which people don't actually realize are now unhealthy if you use BMI, with all of its problems in terms of assessing health) but the perceived "average" - which people perceive as much smaller than the actuals. FMC's sexual orientation is actually irrelevant - she is clearly represented as appreciating beauty even if she doesn't want to have sex with beautiful women. But it is through her eyes that we are seeing these friends and hearing them described.

I do want to address directly, though, your accusation of a contradiction in terms. I never suggested these women would be "remarkably" attractive. Rather that they are of the sort that it would seem unheard of to say they are too fat or ugly without make up (though the original post was focusing on the "too fat" aspect of it). Those who are actually average as you cited? Are routinely told they are "too fat" and medically our growing size has not lead to positive health outcomes so for some that may actually be the case (though people assume that just because someone is larger than they think they should be that they MUST have health problems).

But that's not who my request was asking about. So I do think your addition of "wishfully" before average is accurate. They are attractive, but not moviestars, and they are the sort of thing people think of as average because we simply aren't aware of what's actually going on with average human body size anymore. I don't think that creates a contradiction. You might, and you're entitled to that, but I am not sure I can think of a good way to add that to my story while still staying true to the plot.

Oh and last I checked, cross cultural psychologists have suggested that we tend to focus not on body weight but rather proportions. Basically, what shape is your birth canal? Will you survive child birth or at the very least, will the child, so that genes can be passed on? It was only reletively recently and in Western societies that the hourglass figure stopped being peak beauty regardless of weight (most fertility goddesses as well as goddesses of beauty through the ages showed some curves).

Sorry if this is rambly. I'm going to get off the forums soon - brain is clearly rambly today.

 

[Auden James]

I never suggested these women would be "remarkably" attractive. Rather that they are of the sort that it would seem unheard of to say they are too fat or ugly without make up (though the original post was focusing on the "too fat" aspect of it).

The attribution of "attractiveness" itself signifies some "remarkableness" about the person's appearance thus (positively) distinguished. It could be argued that to judge someone "attractive" eo ipso lifts them out of the unnoticed mass of people (the "average").

Oh and last I checked, cross cultural psychologists have suggested that we tend to focus not on body weight but rather proportions.

Body weight tends to correlate with certain "proportions." E.g., it will be extremely rare for an obese person (BMI ≥ 30) to have an hourglass figure. Hence, by perceiving and appraising the gestalt of other people we indirectly gauge their body weight too.

It was only reletively recently and in Western societies that the hourglass figure stopped being peak beauty regardless of weight (most fertility goddesses as well as goddesses of beauty through the ages showed some curves).

Many of the prehistoric statuettes commonly called "Venus figurines," which might be interpreted as representations of fertility goddesses, show (obese) curves, definitely, but no hourglass figure, e.g., Venus of Willendorf or Venus of Hohle Fels.

And if we take a look at the fertility goddesses of the ancient Mesopotamians (Inanna), Egyptians (Isis), Greeks (Demeter), Romans (Ceres), and Norsemen (Sif), then their depictions show either virtually no curves at all (Inanna, Isis) or only very modest ones (Demeter, Ceres, Sif). Most (preserved) Greek and Roman female statues indeed show no pronounced hourglass figure, e.g., the famous Venus de Milo whose WHR value of 0.76 is significantly greater than the most attractive "hourglass" WHR value of 0.70 or less. Furthermore none of these ancient goddesses show any signs of being overweight (BMI ≥ 25), not to mention obesity (BMI ≥ 30).

Hence, if anything at all, it was only relatively recently in Western societies that not being overweight (let alone not being obese) stopped being considered a basic prerequisite of beauty; likewise it could have been only a relatively recent development, if at all factual, that body weight stopped playing any role at all in "peak beauty" (supposedly respresented from then on by the "hourglass figure" regardless of weight).

 

[SkyBubble]

I'm trying to figure out the sizes for what folks would consider an attractive, but "average" sized woman. Someone you'd never call fat or too curvy, but you also wouldn't say is a stick thin 5'11" size 2 with breasts so big her back should break either

I think the average height for women is around 5'6".

 

[SkyBubble]

Describe her instead as strikingly attractive with gentle curves and breasts so perfect, any man would surrender his soul to suckle at their pert perfect nipples.

One of my characters is described as having "modest but perfect breasts."

She's about medium height, has doe eyes and what her roommate calls "the best ass in the whole house." Those little details are sprinkled through the story. Other than that, what she looks like is entirely on the reader.

 

[ronde]

Okay, so I know everyone is looking for the size 2 woman with DDD breasts and all, but I'm trying to figure out the sizes for what folks would consider an attractive, but "average" sized woman. Someone you'd never call fat or too curvy, but you also wouldn't say is a stick thin 5'11" size 2 with breasts so big her back should break either (some person actually tried to make their proportions look like 1980's Barbie and legit ended up with broken bones as a result, you just CAN'T!).


So would it be something like a Size 6 with a C cup? Size 8? B cup? What would you consider "what's wrong with this person for telling this woman that's she's too fat" sized? (That's the plot point I'm writing in a story. Someone's husband is calling her "fat" and telling her to get off the "baby weight" but she's already, like, perfectly good looking just the way she is).

~Sammy

PS I know, as a womanfolk myself I should know this, but I've been a little teapot (short and stout) my whole life, so I'm trying to get a perspective that isn't just "I *wish* I could look that good" and is instead "this is the average good looking when you're NOT comparing yourself to my self esteem issues.

I'm late to this party so much of this has probably already been posted, but these are my rules about descriptions.

There is never such a thing as an unbiased reader, so any descriptions you write will be interpreted based on that bias and that interpretation will vary depending upon the age, sex, and personal likes/dislikes of each reader. Don't describe by using numerical sizes for anything unless the character verbalizing the description has a valid reason to know those dimensions. For instance...

A cop might know height and weight of a suspect.
Any character would know their own basic dimensions and could reasonably state those to someone else.
Someone rummaging through the clothing of a character could determine actual size, but never just by a visual examination of the character.

Other than these examples, stick to generic descriptions like tall, short, petite, voluptuous, muscular, chubby, and others that let the reader form his or her own picture. That way, you won't offend quite as many readers.

Relative to clothing sizes, most men have no idea about how women's clothing is sized and most women will tell you that the labeled size doesn't mean much so they have to try on something to know if it will fit. That goes for any clothing from panties and bras to jeans and dresses. As people have gotten larger, clothing manufacturers have altered the actual dimensions of the size labeled on the tag to make people feel better about their size.

 

[TheLobster]

Many of the prehistoric statuettes commonly called "Venus figurines," which might be interpreted as representations of fertility goddesses, show (obese) curves, definitely, but no hourglass figure, e.g., Venus of Willendorf or Venus of Hohle Fels.

There's a ton of hypotheses who those figures depict and how they were carved. One is that they weren't fertility goddesses at all, but rather self-portraits of pregnant women. Since they only got their own skewed perspectives of how their bodies looked like, the result is those exaggerated shapes.

Hence, if anything at all, it was only relatively recently in Western societies that not being overweight (let alone not being obese) stopped being considered a basic prerequisite of beauty; likewise it could have been only a relatively recent development, if at all factual, that body weight stopped playing any role at all in "peak beauty" (supposedly respresented from then on by the "hourglass figure" regardless of weight).

I'd put less stock in the "recent development" characterization and more in "wishful thinking" (on the part of women who don't fit said allegedly obsolete standard).

 

[SkyBubble]

Hmm. Your plot point kind of reminds me of David and Natalie in "Love, Actually." It seemed to be a running inside joke that people around them kept calling her fat, but David (Hugh Grant) and the audience (me, at least) were mystified as to how anyone could call such a trim woman "chubby."

The late, great Karen Carpenter, whom we know died of anorexia nervosa at 32 (way too soon, and leaving so much great music unsung), was always bothered by one mean critic who described her as "the chubby little sister." Even at her heaviest, Karen was anything but chubby.