Do you mean that you think that Marilyn Monroe was both hourglassy and hippy?
Is “curvy” wrong though? I guess the problem is that women can be curvy at any size. And largish women can be not curvy (or at least not curvy in the way we traditionally think of women as curvy) as shown in those pictures you put up.
It’s not that it’s wrong. It’s really moreso that it is…taken. A lot of slimmer, curvy women resent it when larger women call themselves curvy. And maybe some men, when they are set up on a date with a ‘curvy’ woman is expecting Jessica Rabbit.
Where I’m from, body shape that is considered desirable is very specific, and there are words to describe each and every type. ‘Thick’ means something very specific. Any ol’ fat girl with a wide flat ass can’t go calling herself thick. I mean, she can, but others would disagree.
Thick means smaller waist, flatter tummy and big and juicy thighs, hips, and booty, and sometimes, big tits. If a girl is really large, well over 200, she may still have that same body type, but she is beyond ‘thick’. Some may call her ‘thick to death’ or some other variation, but the terms are very specific. I like the term ‘big mama’. To me, it reads sexy, and I feel sexy. But words like ‘thick to death’ and ‘big mama’ doesn’t really translate out of the slum and into the mainstream so much.
I think mainstream (or white) large women should probably just give up ‘curvy’ even if they are, and go for something else. Again, I’m talking well out of the Christina Hendricks area and more into the Anna Nichole Smith, the chunky years realm.
And of course, this is just me waxing philisophical. Of course anyone can call themselves anything they like.
I don’t know. I know several women who are in the D to DD range who aren’t fat (and far more that are C-ish, but is the “buxom”?), and I’ve known an equal number of fat women who were a A to B.
Genetics, hormones, and gender all interact to determine where fat deposits will be distributed. Hence the woman who has no hips but is buxom, and the woman with large hips and a small cup size. That means that for many women, gaining weight will not result in even distribution over the body…some will put it in breasts, some will put it on the stomach, and some will put it on the hips, and some on the thighs. And some women will put weight on pretty much evenly over the body.
For example, my sister has always said that the first place she loses weight is in her breasts.
I’m naturally buxom (for my size - I’m a 2-4 and a C cup) and am fatter than my mom, who is a size 0 and has no bust to speak of. I have more trouble than she does staying slim, definitely.
This is a common complaint, mostly amongst women who have smaller breasts. I have big boobs and would love it if the weight dropped from them first, but it’s just not how my body works.
I’m naturally slim, with narrow hips, skinny legs and little bum, but DD-E cup boobs. My mum’s the same (not dissimilar from a young Queen Elizabeth). When I lose weight, it comes off the bits I don’t care about, but my boobs are still there, right in my face.
I’m not sure that bigger boobs = more propensity to put on weight. I just think that if you gain a lot of weight, your boobs are going to be bigger because that’s where some of the weight will sit. Equally, super skinny models will often have hardly any boobs, because through extreme dieting they have no body fat, not because they didn’t have boobs to start with.
It’s worth noting that larger cup size does not automatically equal larger boobs: cup size is relative to rib cage size. So a small woman who wears a 30DD actually has significantly less boob–like, handfuls less–than a woman who is a 36DD.
This theory says women with big boobs will either be the endomorph or the mesomorph type, and those are more likely to gain weight.
I’m an ectomorph - tiny bone structure, tend towards thin (or did before I became middle aged).
No, Monroe was an hourglass, not hippy. In fact, a lot of the 1940s and 1950s actresses were hourglass and curvy.
And I agree that a woman can describe herself however she wants, but to me “curvy” does not mean the curves you get on love handles. I like zaftig. rubenesque. voluptuous. Very ripe, sexy words for “your doctor might encourage you to drop a few pounds.”
You would love me…
42DD x 30 x 41
I am lucky that I have a small waist, but in some ways all it does is make my ginourmous boobs look that much bigger. I’m glad I am reasonably proportioned, but would still be happy to drop 20 pounds.
I would assert that the opposite is more true. Big waistline = big boobs. Not the other way around.
When people gain weight they gain it everywhere, so it is natural as women get fat their boobs get bigger as well.
If you lose weight, your boobs will get smaller.
But as a few folks with naturally larger boobs have pointed out in this thread: that’s not always the case. The meat of my tits does not get bigger or smaller with weight loss or gain-- my band size certainly does and that adjusts my bra, but if anything, that ends up with me in a bigger cup size (moving from a 40 C to a 38 D, for instance).
What the? They just stay the same size no matter what? I dabbled in being overweight a few years ago (didn’t really like it, and went back to my playing weight), and at my largest, which is about 30 lbs more than I am now, my boobs were frickin’ huge! I’ve since lost the weight, and my boobs shrank with them.
In answer to the OP, I’d say no. Yes, people with large breasts are typically larger overall, (makes sense, ya?) but if you naturally have boobies that are disproportionately large for your frame, I’m not sure why that would make a different in weight maintenance.
IME, yes. Women who have more bodyfat are more likely to have large breasts, of course. But also girls who are busty proportionately, even if they start out slim everywhere else, do seem to be more prone to gaining more weight all over.
Most women I know with proportionately large chests have ‘apple’ or ‘banana’ (rectangle) weight distribution - that is, they tend to put on more fat in their upper arms, back, boobs, upper hips, and stomach than ‘pear’ body types which carry most of their weight in their lower hips, butt and legs and stay slimmer in the upper body. A true ‘hourglass’ figure with a narrow midsection that stays that way throughout weight fluctuations to maintain even proportions in the upper body/breasts and hips/legs, is very rare. Most women are more than a couple inches bigger around the hips than around the bust, which means you are a pear shape. Marilyn Monroe was a pear. She was curvy and had boobs, but was still bigger on the bottom. Raquel Welch and Sofia Vergara have hourglass figures.
Hummina, hummina, hummina.
It definitely depends on the woman. I’m a natural 36DD (I could stand to be a DDD but I’m not going through the hassle of trying to find DDD bras) and while I have a very hourglass shape with smaller waist and curvier hips I’m normally not overweight. Usually wear a size medium or size 8/10/12 depending on the brand and I’m about 5’6". Right now I’m 7.5 months pregnant and the boobs are in porn star territory so I don’t even hazard a guess.
One of my very good friends is 5’2", maaaaaybe 115 pounds, very small framed and petite and up until last spring wore a size 32G. It was like being friends with a sideshow, we couldn’t even go to Starbucks in our sweats without people staring her down. She finally underwent breast reduction surgery and her life has changed immensely.
What are we asking here? Are we asking if people with large boobs are generally fat? Yes. Like Sleeps said, if you have giant deposits of fat sitting upon your chest, then you probably have a lot of fat everywhere else. Or are we asking if boob size has any relation to the ability to maintain one’s weight? Because that’s a different question which, I would guess, has a different answer.
I agree, and yet so many women in this thread are hourglasses . . .
