In a MPSIMS thread, I declared that “the waist is at your navel’s height” and got promptly told “is not.”
So, after verifying that my navel and my waist are indeed at the same height, now I’m curious.
The dictionary isn’t very helpful about how to define the waist, all m-w says is “the typically narrowed part of the body between the thorax and hip.” Me, I’m used to considering it as “the point in someone’s torso where that person’s silhouette is narrower, if any.” I think that, based on the other thread, some people make it “the point where someone’s torso has the smallest circumference.”
So if I can get it right, this is a double poll: where is your waist relative to your navel, and how do you define it.
Waist is the narrowest part. No bullshit, I got up and looked at a mirror to determine where my navel was relative to my waist. My navel is about one inchish lower than my waist.
I consider the waist to be right here the pelvis ends – so probably lower (maybe significantly so) than the definitions offered above. Using this definition, I’d say my navel is about ~3 cm above the waist.
Notice how freaking high up the capris are. Hardly anyone wears pants or skirts that high. If you watch old movies (Humphrey Bogart is a good example), you’ll see that men wear their pants much higher than men today.
For the most part, natural waist pants are not flattering on many, since it can lead to your butt looking big or droopy. However, when wearing skirts, a natural waist can elongate your body and accentuate the narrowest part of you (your natural waist), leading to a slimmer look.
So yes, you’re right in that today’s fashion, “waist” is around navel point. But the waist itself is the narrowest part of you, whether or not you wear your pants or skirt there.
Do you need a picture? My navel is at my narrowest point! Yours isn’t, great. Mine is, great too, ok? I also happen to have short legs (or a long torso), wide hips (with tiny hands and feet) and my circumference over the boobs is 95cm with 107cm at the hips. There is such a thing as different body shapes: you’re hourglass, I’m guitar-shaped, your waist is above your navel, mine isn’t.
You know what’s strange about me getting up to look in the mirror to examine my waist and navel? I’m at work, so I went into a shared bathroom to look. There were people in there. Yes, I lifted up my shirt and looked at my stomach while other people were around. They were surely thinking, “What the hell is wrong with this crazy lady?”
I’d wager a lot of money that the people that are saying the waist his below the belly button are men. You need to specify this thread is for women, since that’s what the dispute is over.
Also:
Waist = narrower part of the silhouette.
Waist = part with smallest circumference.
Isn’t that the same thing?
Oh and for what it’s worth, my belly button is significantly below my waist. Hell, looking at a picture, my belly button is a little higher than the widest point of my hips and my waist is much higher than that.
You know, I didn’t even notice that. I don’t read good. I put narrowest part of the silhouette since it is, but that’s because it has the smallest circumference. I suppose there’s someone out there whose stomach protrudes, but the waist is narrowest on the silhouette? I’m not sure how that would be, but it could happen.
Yup, that’s why I checked silhouette. My waist is the narrowest part of my silhouette, but the smallest circumference is up at my bra band. I’ve got a tummy.
Hmmm,
for me the smallest circumference and the narrowest part of my silhouette are both up at my bra band. I would never call that my “waist” (this is true even when I’m thinner). And there’s no way that wearing a skirt that high (or even one that’s lower, but still pretty high) is going to be remotely flattering.
When I do measure my waist, I measure at my navel.
I didn’t mean it to be for women; the “no appreciable waist” lines are specifically based on several guys I know. One of my brothers is a rectangle, the other one’s narrowest point is at his navel, higher than the top of the hipbones.
I guess I should have specified that I wasn’t speaking of “the measurement your tailor calls waist,” since that one changes with fashion and even by piece of clothing, but the poll is intended for both genders.
MeanOldLady, to find my mother’s waist it’s best to look from the back. From the back she has a clearly-defined waist; from the front, her Santa’s belly kind of obscures the view; you can still see where the narrowest point is, but calling it a “waist” feels a bit like referring to “the richest guy” in an Amazonian tribe.
I don’t understand how these two things are in any way different from each other. If your silhouette is narrower, your circumference would be also, by definition.
I’m very high-waisted; the narrowest part of my torso is right below my lowest set of ribs. My navel is about two inches below that.
Plenty of men, if not most, have visible waists. Fat or in shape, guys usually narrow down by their belly button. Think of an “in shape” guy- he’s shaped like a V, not a block. So again, the male natural waist is lower than the female, which is going to skew your results here.
Apparently what you want to measure is not what I want to measure, Diosa.
Kaio, there’s been several posts mentioning how it’s possible for the narrowest point in the silhouette to not be the point with the smallest perimeter. My mother’s smallest perimeter is directly under her breasts, the narrowest point in her silhouette is a couple inches lower.
I see waist as where pants and especially skirts without elastic want to sit on my torso, and for me it’s significantly, like 2 inches, above my belly button, right about where my rib cage starts. Skirts will ride themselves up to that point, and unless I want to belt at the hips I should belt a dress there, too, or the belt will ride up and perch.
