fact check: Kim Kardashian wears a size 2. I have no clue where the heck you got a size 10 from, but its a pretty well advertized and well known fact that her measurements are 34 26 29 as they were recently taken for her wax model and those numbers were published by the independent company that came and measured her.
in answere to your question: what matters most is tone. Tone is a big word here. You can be skinny and really not need to worry about it because tone is almost a given. you can be larger (to a degree) and tone is still the 100% factor between someone who is larger and unattractive because weight is being held all over on them (or too much centrally) and someone with the same body frame (aka skeletal make up) but a much tighter tone. Guys realize that medium and larger girls will have bigger curves but we'll only fully appreciate them if they come well toned (though I'm sure we can unfully appreciate them no matter what). While skinny girls get to get away with less curves because tone is all but a garuntee.
but please, don't try to use kim k as a backup for your argument. she has a TINY TINY waist (and a small rib cage as well) but she just happens to have large breasts and a famously large ass and thighs. Yet because she is very active in maintaining her tone her waist itself is actually very small.
Depends on the guy. I tend to prefer women who are technically overweight, but so much depends on conditioning and other factors that aren't weight-based, like bust size and overall proportioning. As to the specific case, Kim Kardashian is NOT fat, not even close. Yes, she has a big butt, but her proportions are very good, and there is no sign of spare fat anywhere, and she generally looks well-toned.
As a matter of cold hard fact, outside of some notoriously heavy actresses, most Hollywood types are slender to actively underweight. Look at the legion of thin arms and legs out there. Both Hollywood's and modeling's standards are, by medical reckoning, close to dangerously underweight. Many of them are taller than average (though lots aren't), but virtually all have waist sizes far smaller than average.
There is a trope called "Hollywood pudgy", which is defined by being 'fat' by their standard, yet, in fact, technically slender/thin. To call a woman with a smaller than average waist 'pudgy', is one of the least attractive, and least accurate, of Hollywood's and the tabloids' labels.
Well first of all i am a girl and you might not want my opinion but i will still give it to you.
Honesty if i were a guy and saw a girl with a muffin top i would consider her fat. What i am trying to say is that if your not toned your fat but you could still be 200 pounds and not be considered fat if your body is well toned. This excludes skinny girls because some aren't toned but they are skinny.
I don't think attractivness is based on the size you wear. It's more on your bust-waist-hip ratio (curves) which no matter the size you are, are always there if you naturally have them.
Not a guy, but I agree with you. I'm a size 2 and I have days when I feel huge and unattractive :(
Opinion
8Opinion
Fat is not something that can be described using dress sizes or weights. It is a measure of a body shape, and numbers do not describe a shape. I have seen women who were overweight but I would not call them "fat" because they still had shapely feminine figures that tapered in drastically at the waist and flared back out at the hips. I have seen smaller, thinner women who did not have that and I would be more inclined to call those women fat than I would call the other ones fat.
It is a shape, it is not a size or a weight. Bottom line.
I think it can be kinda hard to put it in terms of pant size (unless you get up to high numbers, Marilyn Monroe was a 12 but she wasn't fat) How I see fat is by the person, some girls wear higher pant/dress sizes but have muscle, to me if your thicker but it's not actual fat than your not fat, if you have a slight tummy then your not fat but if your stomach hangs way over then yeah your a bit fat, just remember being thick/healthy doesn't mean your fat, I like girls that have a nice curvy body, I like girls to atually look like a women not a 14 year boy (no curves)
Yeah, that's what I mean though. Models tend to have Boyish figures. Which to me are not no where near as hott as an hour glass figure. If you have a boyish figure then of course your going to have a smaller dress size. At least that's what I think. This is why I said its the body type that is important.
its not so much the size its how you look over all. For example I think anyone who can grab there stomach and grab on the a large amount of flat is fat. You have nothing to worry about because your not fat. See the thing is everyone's body type is different some people have smaller waists than others but that doesn't mean the person is automatically fat. So I don't think pant sizes are very reliable.
It's hard to say. You can just go on size because a girl who's size 10 could look pretty big (Kim K does for that size) and then you could have a size 12 who looks really small(one of my friends).
It all comes down to proportions. It's rare for me to call a girl fat, but I'm more lenient then most guys.
Kardashians are getting up there, but fat is trendy now! Persnally, I like women who look good in short shorts. If they don't look good, they're too big!
Kim Kardashian is a size 2-4. I have no idea where you got a 10 from.
I'd consider Kim Kardashian to be on the fat side. Her ass is ginormous.
When girls have the front-ass or the back-titties
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions