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.
Amber Rose is the ideal beauty for a certain segment of the population (generally lower/lower middle class blacks). She is light skinned with a somewhat exotic background, small waist, big butt, and her career is being the girlfriend of fill-in-the-blank rapper du jour.
Yeah, and I'm a middle-class, highly-educated, white woman---and I think she's beautiful...sooooo
I agree with most of your post. But I highly doubt Kim Kardashian & that Amber Rose chick have waists that small. I'm about 24.5"-37" on the bottom, and my waist looks much smaller than theirs in photos. I don't have an extremely curvy look either, especially in regular clothes.
While I have a bit of a "bubble butt" & rather slender thighs, it's not extreme like theirs, of course. I actually look a bit waifish to people, in photos & in person. I wear a size 2 or 4, even 0 in vanity sized stores (ie. Anthropologie). There's no way those women could fit into those sizes. Probably size 6 for Kardashian at her thinnest (perhaps between butt injections when deflated a bit).
Even with their more extremely protruding butts, those women do not have waists that small. They don't look smaller than 26-27 inches at best, but yes, they likely have much larger butts than 38" (probably 40" at least).
I don't know what their waist is, I was simply giving an example of how the average woman does not have extreme differences between their waist and butt size--as in 15 inches or more, which is typical of a video model--for instance I've seen video models with a 26 inch waist and 42 inch butt, or 25 inch waist and 40 inch butt, etc--it's always an extreme difference of 15 or more inches--for instance I read somewhere that at some point Coco was 24 inches with a 40 inch butt. That type of difference(16 inches), especially with the waist being extremely flat and the butt being very big, is not the way the average woman looks. There are woman that can have measurements similar to that, but in person the differences are not as pronounced--their like you for instance, where they have a decent proportional difference between butt and waist, but it isn't as extreme looking or noticable, and like you said they can still fit into clothes without having to get it altered(the way Kim does for instance).
As it stands, I have to get my pants altered, because my waist to butt ratio is bigger-but I'm pear shaped, and I've been lifting heavy for a couple of years and have always had a big butt, since I was basically a child, it's my bodyshape. My waist is 27.5 and my butt is around 42 inches, something of that nature(last time I checked). And I'm short( 5ft2)--so it definitely makes it more noticable, than someone who was a bit taller with the same measurements. Kim is 5ft1, and Coco is 5ft1 too--so I'm sure while their measurements are quite more distinguished, the fact that they are shorter also makes it more pronounced than someone with the same measurements as them but 4-5 inches taller. I don't wear plus-size at all, and I'm fit--I lift heavy, circuit train, and work out hard, eat well etc--so I don't want to assume that they can't fit into certain sizes, nor do I want to assume what their waist size is... I have no clue. I can't tell from just looking at someone what size their waist is. However I'm sure that these days Kim probably is not wearing the same size that she wore a couple of years ago where it was quoted that she wore a size 4--and that was when her butt was smaller than it is now.
I read somewhere, that a big butt is considered anything larger than 37 inches, and that 40 inches or bigger is extremely big, so I'd assume that they are probably much higher than 40 inches-- especially since my butt is not as big as Kim's at all... Also want to note that my point was not to say that it isn't impossible for a woman to be built like these women(coco, Kim, Amber) but that it isn't the way the average woman looks, and that typically if a woman has a huge butt, the waist is going to be bigger as well, along with other body parts. The fact that anyone could believe that Kim K represents a normal woman, or the average woman is beyond me. Beyond citydata for instance, the pictures that Chum posted, don't really reflect the way most women look... Even women that are incredibly fit.
Last edited by Faith2187; 03-22-2014 at 11:41 AM..
I'm having a hard time figuring out how this woman keeps coming up in this thread. I don't see anything particularly special about her.
. It's only one poster who has continued to bring her up, lol. No one I know IRL talks about Amber rose at all... Not that she isn't pretty or attractive, because she is, but she is nothing to me that would garner this much attention. I realize that everyone has a different standard of beauty, and she is pretty, and she is unique, but I never would have thought of her as beautiful either(kim either for that matter). That being said, at least at a minimum she looks natural compared to other "exotic" looking woman that have similar body types that have been constructed due to surgery but get a lot of media attention.
Most of the women I find attractive, are women that are slimmer or average, or at least natural looking bodywise with certain features. I can see how Amber could be beautiful to people that find her style/fashion unique, and her body type desirable. *shrugs*
This is a great thread. What I love is that a case can be made for just about any and all of the women listed as being universally beautiful. Well, that is, other than the old grey hair women who were posted, the obese Indian chick, and the laughable fact that someone dared mention Liza Minelli and Cher. LMAO!!
Mod cut: Rude.
It was I who mentioned both Cher and Liza. They were household names back in the day because of their beauty and talent. To me, Cher was much more glamorous (and tons more talented) back in her day than any Kardashian today. And Liza---she looked amazingly beautiful back in the 70s, not to mention her dynamic stage performances and theatrical charm. For all of you too young to know what either of these ladies were like in their prime, Google 'em! I didn't laugh at your choices, Chum Kiu---we all see beauty differently, don't we?
I'm surprised Kim Kardashian hasn't popped up a lot in this thread, she seems to be everywhere and even graced the cover of Vogue.
She used to be so beautiful, but I don't know what she did to her face; she looks different now. It started before she was pregnant. Same with Megan Fox; she was gorgeous and the nose job made her even more beautiful. After she got her cheeks done, she looks older now and not as pretty IMO.
If I could look like anyone, I would love to look like Cindy Crawford during her prime; not only was she so gorgeous, but was sexy as well. I mentioned Ash Rai before, but I don't find Ash sexy.
For those of you who just look at the pic and think "Oh, that is photoshop", just click on the link to see the vid of her in action. This is flat out perfection.
Two thumbs up to anyone who picked outside of hollywood celebrities.
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.
