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.
I have to assume you are mistaken as if you check her ebay account (and various other websites which reference her selling her clothes for charity money) they all say "Kim Kardashian dresses for sale on eBay are available in a size 2 or size 4 depending on the style". I don't want to stand up for someone who is famous without talent, but if they are going to pick someone to list as "larger but sexy" they shouldn't pick someone with a tiny waist and assume her big ass will confuse people.
Yeah that booty is NOT a size 2, her pants size must be at least a size 12
You really think someone with her sort of money can't afford a tailor? a 26 waist is a 2. plain and period. that's the definition of it. If she needs to get it tailored for her butt.... well yea. that's why she recently announced a new line of clothing for women with small waists and big butts/thighs. Again, these are all well known facts and even a second of looking this up would tell you she wears size 2 and 4.
as for the 36? she's a 32DD. since each cup is 3/4 an inch, that would be exactly 36.
The metrics you use to measure size are deceptive since you are targeting "size" and someone who clearly has large breasts and a large backside can have a tiny size because its based around certain things (waist, leg length and, in dresses, rib cage size) that people don't normally think about when they discuss body types. but that's how body types (for clothes) are defined. A 10 or 12 would be swimming on this girl because it would be a foot too wide for her waist.
size doesn't equal body type.
25-26 is a 32 band size ( because you add 4 inches), over here(uk and ireland) 1inch=1 cup size. So 32 + 2 (34) = 32B. In america they run a size smaller so that would make her a 32A. Which OBVIOUSLY she isn't. You're wrong sorry. I know more about this than you, because I'm a girl.
https://www.85b.org/bra_calc.php if you don't believe me.
I just used your website and got a 36D. Which, okay, I said 36DD, but once again, have no idea where the heck you are getting this incorrect info from.
I looked up what the waist size of 26 = and it is a 4. Oh my. Check your facts. and she is american so please use american metrics since its what she would be using.
Additionally all those +4" or "5" are simple estimates to simplify the process since most people are too inept to properly use measuring tape (sad as it is).
The estimate is NOT NOT NOT (did I say it enough) how one actually measures bust or dimentions. You do that with actual tape measurement. you measure below, around, and above the breast. Your bra size is the average of the below and above measurement. the cup size is the amount of inches the breast area differs from the ribcage. While you can use ABCD at 1 inch each, its more accurate to use 3/4 an inch and use AA,A,B,C,D, DD as it compensates properly for the AA and DD as it is commonly sized
So lets do your math. Its again well known and independently verified that her rib cage is 32". Well if she was truly a DD (which no one denies) my measurement says her bust should be 36.5". Very close to the independtly verified size. Using your OWN website and 1" = one letter metric: 32 inch chest and 36 bust is a 32D size, right on the dot.
and I know I'm right because I actually did the research before I wrote down stuff. Where did I do my research? Medical school: its part of pediatrics.
She might say she's a size 2 ( after some googling according to her blog she is) but the truth is she can't be a size 2. According to her measurements she's somewhere between 6-10.
size 6- 34 26.5 37.5
size 8- 35 27.5 38.5
size 10- 36 28.5 39.5
and a size 2 is: 32-34 22-24.5 33-35.5
There is no way her measurements make her a size 2.
You did not get a f***ing 36 band size from a 26 inch waist. I should know, my waist size is 25 and I wear a 32 band. If my waist is between a 25 and 26 and my ribcage is 28 inches, then clearly if her waist is the same size so is her ribcage. This means her ribcage is 28inches +4 = 32 BAND. And you add 1CUP SIZE PER INCH. (UK sizes/US SIZES ARE ONE SIZE SMALLER) Which makes her 32A US/ 32B UK. Which is INCORRECT.
@linda: yea, but the *vital* measurment is the waist, which is a '4'. The rest of it can vary a lot by designer and is often tailored around to get it to be right for the women. While her whole body (due to that butt) isn't a 4, what's most important and can't be tailored without very much ruining the garment is the waist.
@4lulz: your estimate that adds +4" to the waist is INCORRECT. it is only an estimate, and a poor one. band size is 100% based on your rib cage. it has no relation to the waist
I can't stress enough that just because the "rib is within 4" of the waist" thing is convenient does not make it at all correct. Its just an assumption that works for a plurality of women if you need to estimate a good starting band size. But it is *not* correct. And this specific case is a perfect example of how ridiculously wrong it can be with someone who has a small waist. The *only* way to get a band size is to pull out measuring tape and measure the rib cage.
Im weary of this. She self admits to wearing 32D. Madam taussauds has gone and wrapped a tape around her under bust and found it to be 32 inches. This is a fact. you don't need to use a formula for this. This has been repeatedly proven that her rib cage is, in fact, 32 inches around. Everything else is just following the dots. 34/26/39. ass/waist/bust. Done.
Learn how to measure you're own body. Your image proved to me that you can't realize that the area under your bust is not your waist.
I NEVER said under your bust is the same as your waist. Seriously, lying to try and prove your right? I don't deny she is a 32D, however she has NOT got a 34inch bust. I can tell you that as a fact. Also you yourself said at one point she was a 36D? So you are being extremely contradictory..
The image you showed asked for under bust, bust and over bust. You entered her waist size into the chart as her under bust. which showed me you didn't understand something vital to the measurements. And I've never said she was a 34 bust. actually: only you have. I've been telling you from when you first said that "it can't be 34" that its her butt that is measuring 34, but you've been in your own world trying to apply this "add four inches" estimate to her waist and ignored me. Get with the game.
''but its a pretty well advertized and well known fact that her measurements are 34 26 29 '' Did you not say this? And 28 is not her waist size love, know the facts. 28 is probably her rib cage measurement. How do I know this? Because my waist size is 25-26 inches and my ribcage is 28 inches. 28 IS THE NUMBER I PUT INTO THE CHART NOT 26. You're twisting my words. You are either to thick to understand or are pretending not to because you can't accept that you are wrong.
29 was a typo I didn't even realize til right now. but seeing as I've been referring to her bust as 38 or 39 every single time, you should have figured out that 1 anamoly among about 10 other consistance references was simply a miskey.
and NO. I hate to go ad homenim, but you are clearly being dense here. Measurements are butt, waist, bust. That is the measurements everywhere in the damn western world. You are so very very far off base here.
FACT CHECK: She's lied about her weight numerous times. She isn't what she claims to be
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)
By today’s standards Marilyn would have been a size 6-8 (what a size 12 from back then is). A size 12 today isn’t what it was back then.
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.
Kim Kardashian is no size 2. She ruined Marilyn’s dress. Marilyn Monroe was a size 6-8 by today’s standards (size 12 for when she was alive). So Kim K. has to be at least a size or two bigger than that, to make the material start fraying and embellishments pop off. The back of the dress is a horrid mess now.
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
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions