Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are those American sizes or are they from another country? If they are from another country - that would make sense since, for instance, I think in New Zealand, a size 6 is like the equivalent of a 2 or something like that.
They are UK sizes. A UK 6 is a 2. A UK 16 is a US 12. So their ideal size 12 is a US 8, which is also a medium (6-8 is usually medium). The US average, as noted, is a size 12-16, which is a UK 16-20 (& UK sizes 18-20 are not pictured....wonder why...hmmmm).
FYI, actresses like JLo & Scarlett Johanssen are reportedly US size 6-8, and they are curvy but still slender. They are also much smaller than the average American woman. Just to put it into perspective.
The size thing is way too simplistic. All of those women have a leaner look at any size - the larger ones look more muscular than most women at their same size. That's misleading, because some size 2s look less bony & some size 12s look much flabbier. They also always show larger women who are hourglass, which is an unusual shape at any size. Most women in the higher size ranges have much bigger tummies. In day to day life, I rarely see women above a US size 10 who have flat tummies & defined waists... They also often have wide, flat rears that are saggy & dimply. Few are in good shape. These photo comparisons always show the front only, but a firm round butt without dimples is more likely on a slender woman.
I think the point of that post was to show the difference between what is statistically average (ie. most common) & what is considered in the middle of "ugly" and "beautiful". Statistically, it seems there may be more ugly people than average people, perhaps because beauty standards are too high and/or people don't take care of their bodies.
Geez, and I was thinking the OP's example is way below average and almost homely!
Does my wife have me spoiled or what?!
I agree. Her face is just......like she was hit head-on by a semi hauling Ugly Sticks in some pictures.
Like another poster said though, there are some photos where she comes off as attractive. That just goes to show you that a good photographer/photoshop is worth the money.
Sorry to sound mean but she's just too "off" to be what I'd consider average. Average isn't eye-catching whether in a good or bad way. It's "plain Jane" in my estimation.
But it also depends on where you are. An average woman in South Beach probably looks a lot different from an Average woman in Fargo.
They also always show larger women who are hourglass, which is an unusual shape at any size. Most women in the higher size ranges have much bigger tummies. In day to day life, I rarely see women above a US size 10 who have flat tummies & defined waists... They also often have wide, flat rears that are saggy & dimply. Few are in good shape. These photo comparisons always show the front only, but a firm round butt without dimples is more likely on a slender woman.
Really? I see a lot of women who are shaped like me...above a size ten (I assume, anyway... it's impossible to judge clothing sizes by eyeballing them, for me), but with a flat abdomen and defined waist, wide pelvis, full-thighed and pear-shaped/bottomheavy. Definitely not a flat rear, lol, though I spent my teen years wishing it were MORE flat! Most of my life (i.e. puberty on), I've worn plus sizes on the bottom, regular sizes on top. I'm not an hourglass...too narrow of shoulders and not an ample enough bustline in comparison to hip width.
I mean, maybe it really is a really rare silhouette, and I just notice it often because it happens to be my silhouette, but a pear shape with a small waist and no stomach flab doesn't seem that rare to me.
Someone who's 5'4" and 144 lbs. is not likely to look ike anyone in the lower picture. Most will look chunky, plump, not curvy/attractive. But these photos also raise the question: what kind of figure are we talking about in relation to "average"? Small boobs? A-B cup is what I think of as average. That only describes the first two or three women on the left of the bottom photo.
Eh, it depends on their body fat percentage. Muscle is more dense than fat, so 144lbs of muscle will be smaller than 144lbs of fat.
I am almost those numbers exactly. I am 5'4'' and 138lbs, I wear anywhere from a 2 to an 8 (depending on the designer of course), and my body fat percentage is around 27%. I also have an hourglass figure with an ample hip to bust.
wow, is the woman from the OP a celebrity of some sort?
I always considered myself somewhat below average, face-wise, but these pictures make me feel better, lol.
Eh, it depends on their body fat percentage. Muscle is more dense than fat, so 144lbs of muscle will be smaller than 144lbs of fat.
I am almost those numbers exactly. I am 5'4'' and 138lbs, I wear anywhere from a 2 to an 8 (depending on the designer of course), and my body fat percentage is around 27%. I also have an hourglass figure with an ample hip to bust.
I'm right at her height/weight/age, and we don't look anything alike. We are backwards of each other; so you can't go by just one person.
Not always overweight, could be muscle as well.
I was heavier in this pic, when I was in MMA training. In this pic I was close to 150lbs, and down to 21% body fat; and not a bit overweight.
I know this is about averages, but you can't just expect to post that girls that size are all overweight and have it fly.
For every honey boo boo mom, there's a Gina Carano.
Very interesting. And that "real women" photo was, too. I don't know what age range you're in, Scout wife, but the woman in the photo was mid-30's to mid-40's, which makes a difference. As a teen of the same height, I bet she was slimmer. And she looks a little matronly, you can tell there's a little extra weight there, that she covers up with a full, blouse-y top. '
So we have a lot of variables going here; age (the weight charts for young women are different than for older (-ish) women), muscle mass, which as a couple of people pointed out, weighs more but looks firmer, thinner, and then also curviness. And also, bone structure. My 5'4" friends are very small in the chest and rear, so that's why I said they'd be fat at 144 lbs. One is fine-boned, too. But women who are curvy and well-proportioned can carry more weight at that height.
Really? I see a lot of women who are shaped like me...above a size ten (I assume, anyway... it's impossible to judge clothing sizes by eyeballing them, for me), but with a flat abdomen and defined waist, wide pelvis, full-thighed and pear-shaped/bottomheavy. Definitely not a flat rear, lol, though I spent my teen years wishing it were MORE flat! Most of my life (i.e. puberty on), I've worn plus sizes on the bottom, regular sizes on top. I'm not an hourglass...too narrow of shoulders and not an ample enough bustline in comparison to hip width.
I mean, maybe it really is a really rare silhouette, and I just notice it often because it happens to be my silhouette, but a pear shape with a small waist and no stomach flab doesn't seem that rare to me.
I agree. Though not all pear shapes look the same. Alicia Keys is a classic example of a pear shape--in that she has thick thighs, big hips, small upper body, narrow shoulders, etc. But her butt is not big at IMO. I also notice a signature trademore of pears is that like Jennifer Hewitt, Alica Keys, etc they tend to not be as muscular or lean when they do carry extra weight and almost appear to be "softer looking". However, overall, I've found that pear-shapes, like most shapes have variations. I've seen pears that had flat butts but thick legs and a wider hip and pears with slimmer legs and a big butt like Kim K(though not fake). Some of these pears had flat stomachs, others had a little pouch, and some looked very "soft"(lacking clear muscle definitions) and others not so much... And a thin pear--well it was more difficult to even tell they were a pear.
I'm an hour glass/pear mix. I'm thicker and curvy, but I wear a size 8. Anyway I was told when I was younger that I was pear-shaped, but I always found it strange because when I met classic pear shapes they always had that Alicia Keys' build--where if they were sitting down I thought they were thin, and then they would stand up and you'd see the big hips, etc and notice the "classic" pear bottom half. In other words, the classic small upper body, smaller face, bigger bottom body. That simply did not "fit" me. I looked more evenly keeled--my shoulders seemed to mesh up with my hips, but my waist was flatter(like a pear), I also tend to build muscle very quickly and don't have the "soft" look that I've noticed on some of the "Classic" pears(J hewit, A Keys, for instance). On the flip side, when I wear dresses, my bottom half tends to make me look "pear-ish", and I carry most of my weight in my butt and thighs,with wide hips, and no boobs. Which is why I believe I was coined a pear-shape growing up. Now that I compare my body types to classic pears I know that I'm not a classic pear--but merely some variation between pear and hour glass. So I would say that it isn't rare TBH for a pear woman to have your silhouette, but there are certainly variations in shapes, not everyone is a straight pear, or a straight hour glass.
OAN, I don't know how someone can judge what size someone wears enough to make blanket statements that people over a size 10 can't have flat stomachs... I've met girls that have flat stomachs and are plus-size just sayin' lol. The trying to figure out what size a woman wears based on appearance alone is just as silly as trying to post a pic of what the "average" woman looks like...
Very interesting. And that "real women" photo was, too. I don't know what age range you're in, Scout wife, but the woman in the photo was mid-30's to mid-40's, which makes a difference. As a teen of the same height, I bet she was slimmer. And she looks a little matronly, you can tell there's a little extra weight there, that she covers up with a full, blouse-y top. '
The same as she is, I'll be 38 this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
So we have a lot of variables going here; age (the weight charts for young women are different than for older (-ish) women), muscle mass, which as a couple of people pointed out, weighs more but looks firmer, thinner, and then also curviness. And also, bone structure. My 5'4" friends are very small in the chest and rear, so that's why I said they'd be fat at 144 lbs. One is fine-boned, too. But women who are curvy and well-proportioned can carry more weight at that height.
Gotcha! See, now that would be my sister. She's just barely under 5' (she's 4'7/8") and about 98-100lbs, very small build, smaller hips and bust; while I have 32DDD's and a butt and thighs, and more muscle than she does. Heck my youngest has her beat all over by a mile, at 5'5'' and 113lbs, lol!
I say a woman looks best cooking and making beer runs. That's the standard. If she also keeps fresh batteries in the remote marry her ASAP. Looks fade with time but a good gravy maker just get better with time.
Really? I see a lot of women who are shaped like me...above a size ten (I assume, anyway... it's impossible to judge clothing sizes by eyeballing them, for me), but with a flat abdomen and defined waist, wide pelvis, full-thighed and pear-shaped/bottomheavy. Definitely not a flat rear, lol, though I spent my teen years wishing it were MORE flat! Most of my life (i.e. puberty on), I've worn plus sizes on the bottom, regular sizes on top. I'm not an hourglass...too narrow of shoulders and not an ample enough bustline in comparison to hip width.
I mean, maybe it really is a really rare silhouette, and I just notice it often because it happens to be my silhouette, but a pear shape with a small waist and no stomach flab doesn't seem that rare to me.
I don't see such dramatic pears that they keep a flat tummy above size 10 (no doubt it exists, but no, not THAT common, IMO). They may have a rounder butt, perhaps, but many pears are WIDE in the butt, not necessarily with a rounded butt.
What I was basically saying is most women I see look out of shape, while the pictured women look in pretty good shape. I don't think they represent average women of their size....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The trying to figure out what size a woman wears based on appearance alone is just as silly as trying to post a pic of what the "average" woman looks like...
