Since I have gained almost 20 lbs. since last year, I measured myself again.
36-30-36.
Weird.
I’d always heard the “ideal” was 36-22-36.
Was this normal to have such a small waist?
Or were these women really short?
Even when I was 5’11" and 115 lbs. my waist was 27!
(now I am 148 lbs.)
It’s 36-24-36, not 22.
It’s the ratio that is the ideal, not the measurements alone.
Plus, yeah, those people were shorter. 5"11 is a bit tall.
I mean, in 2004 you don’t exactly hear “did you see that girl’s bust! It was at least 36 inches.” That’s like “Woah check out those breasts they were completely within the normal average size range!”
I think if they made up that expression now it would be something like 40-22-32.
Um…got a link to a photo? I have no idea what that’s supposed to look like.
Today’s women, by and large, are heavier than their mothers and grandmothers.
I’d be willing to bet that fewer than 5 percent of the adult female population in the U.S. has a 24-inch waistline. (Maybe as few as 2 percent.) I think I read somewhere that the average female waistline today is somewhere around 30 inches.
That makes sense. When I worked retail, they average rule of thumb I was given was that womens pants are 20 plus whatever the size is in inches. It’s not perfect, but I have found it to be generally true.
And since the average woman is supposed to be a size 10 or 12 I would guess, a 30" waist suits her.
I thought the ideal was bust and hips equal with the waist 10 inches smaller.
A waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 is usually considered “ideal” in terms of both attractiveness and fertility.
[pig hat on] Screw what’s ideal! Daddy likes what you got going on!![pig hat off]
Seriously though, I’ve never found ANYTHING wrong with a woman who has a little meat on her bones.
I’m 5’1 and currently about 47kgs, having put on a couple of pounds recently, thankfully it goes to my hips (I say thankfully, because it balances out the boobs).
I’m actually 34-24-34 at the moment, but since I have a very tiny frame and 30F boobs, I don’t think my figure is quite what they had in mind when they thought up those numbers.
I can fit into trousers and jeans from kids stores (usually age 12-13), a good things, since women’s trousers start at a 26’’ waist, which is fine in low-rise hipsters, but not if I want something higher waisted.
That’s interesting to know. I wonder how much that has changed recently? I’ve noticed sizes seem to be getting smaller, the older I get. As in, what was a five or a seven when I was growing up, is now a two or a three. I gained 15 pounds around age 25, and the clothing I wear now, says it’s a smaller size than the things I wore when I was lighter. Apparently, I now wear a size I could not have fit into and still breathe, even as a teen. Someone else must have noticed this, and I also wonder if this has happened before? Was what was a seven when I was growing up, a nine to an earlier generation?
As long as youre proportioned well, I wouldnt worry about it.
(BTW, this whole time I thought vanilla was a guy…)
If the “average” woman is a size 10 or 12, then there’s no way she has a 30 inch waist.
I weigh 132 and have a bust of 39, waist of 29, and hips of 41. I wear a size 7 pants. By most standards, I am considered small. I do have a D-cup breasts, and a bubble butt, so that accounts for the larger measurements on those. But, I am still smaller than the majority of women I see.
36-22-36?!!
36-24-36?!
I’d always heard 36-26-36, which is more realistic (though perhaps not very common or realistic), and which happens to closely fit the 70% “ideal” ratio.
That 22" waist sounds Barbie doll impossible to me.
I will go sob now although no one gives me any pity…
I try to find things that fit appropriately but it is difficult. This weekend I was looking at some amazing leather corsets. I need to get one special made. Why do I know this? Well I measured myself…
47 - 32 - 42
I have a photo of my grandmother on her wedding day. I don’t know how accurate the story is but I’ve heard all my life that she had a 19 inch waist in that picture. Now I know I need to lose a few pounds since I had our second kid last fall but even at my thinnest when I was 140 pounds I still had a 30 inch waist…
Oh and I am 5’ 5 since I know that’s important 
Since when is a 30 inch waist considered big??? That’s crazy.
An “ideal” figure varies wildly by culture and by era. At any given time, though, there’s really only two significant data points: What you consider ideal, and what your SO considers ideal (which ought to match your current figure!).
tanookie, you know we’re going to want to see photos of your outfit. So would you please post photos when they’re available?
According to noted scholar Rick James, the ideal ratio is indeed 36-24-36. In the 1990s, it was proposed by Sir Mix-a-lot that this ratio only holds true if the woman is 5’3", but research remains ongoing.
Seriously, I’m pretty small, and I still have a 26-inch waist. 30 inches is absolutely normal, especially for 5’11". Oh, and pant size varies with the manufacturer. The Gap tends to run about two sizes large (if you wear a size six in other pants, it’ll be a four at the Gap).
What I’ve always heard is that the waist number shouldn’t be more than 10 less than the bust number - if it is, then the lady is probably a bit underweight. Of course, this doesn’t take into account height, so it’s moot. So 36-26-36 or 36-28-36 or 36-30-36 are all fine, but 36-22-36 sounds like the lady would be emaciated.
When I was 16 I had a 20" waist.
Sigh, oh for the days when my waistline was smaller than my skull. 