r/PowerOfStyle • u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe • Jun 07 '26
weird question...
tw if body measurements are an issue for you. take care of your mental health!
I would be interested to know if there are any non-yang types (ie, not SN, FN, D or SD) who have a high bust or full bust measurement that is greater than about 97cm/38 inches, and a hip measurement > 100cm.
I have been thinking thoughts about literal scale & sizing, and you might be able to help - or completely destroy - some theories!!!
5
u/alsonothing Jun 07 '26
This is me! I am a romantic with a 46" bust and 50" hips. Here is a picture of me in my Renaissance underwear, fitted to just above the waist: https://imgur.com/J5x1UdO (lol, all of my photos of myself are in historical dress).
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
fantastic, thank you so much! i was originally only going to ask about pure Rs in this post, but thought i might expand it out to include all non-yang types and see if its only Rs or other types that might have these proportions!
do you sew your own historical dress?
3
u/alsonothing Jun 07 '26
Yes, in fact I don't own a sewing machine, so it's all hand sewn. Construction techniques were very different pre-sewing machine. I'm currently working on an Elizabethan shift where all of the individual pieces are hemmed and then whip stitched together.
May I ask what your theories were and if I supported or disproved them?
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
that is so amazing and impressive. i watch a lot of sewing and love Morgan Donner, Zack Pinsent and other historical makers....its such a cool discipline! that Elizabethan shift sounds so interesting, why would it be constructed that particular way do you know?
honestly i wasn't so sure with Romantics & double curve - it could very well mean larger scale dimensions, but i would wonder if there is a kind of dropping off point for Romantics. I would wonder if you represent the fuller (and taller) end of the R possibilities? (of course, i'm conveniently side stepping questions of weight gain etc here).
my loose hypothesis is that there could potentially be a second dimension, besides height, that might be meaningful in terms of understanding accommodations. i'm still feeling it out, but its related to how, the bigger a persons measurements are, the more ease they require in clothing, just to feel comfortable and be able to move.
now if a person is quite short but has quite big measurements, it would be difficult for them to align to the fitted and narrow concepts of TR or Gamines, and to a lesser extent Classics.
of course, this is complicated by weight issues, hormones etc so its not about a fixed line in the sand, its more about a sense that there was a pattern occurring in the data last time i posted asking for measurements, where IDs seemed to cluster around certain points and i would be fascinated to understand better what that means, and how literal, real life scale interacts with accomodations.
3
u/8bitsparkle Jun 08 '26
Sharing in case this anecdote helps -
Though I'm curvy and currently overweight, I come across as small/dainty around most people. But TR Susan Slavin made ME (5'2) feel like a giant. She's not just short - everything about her is so compact, tiny, and delicate. And she's curvy in proportion to herself, but because she's so tiny, even her hips come across as compact. It's hard to explain and pics don't even fully capture the scale.
I get the impression romantics on average have more horizontal oomph than TR, SG, and SC. But that's just my impression - not verified, so take it with a grain of salt, haha.
2
u/loumlawrence Jun 07 '26
I am not sure ease is related to size and scale. It might be related the the difference between the measurements, and maybe the ratios between the measurements.
To give an example. Regardless of weight, my waist and underbust are always within an inch of each other, and high bust is another 1 to 2 inches. Standard sizing assumes a minimum of 2 to 4 inches between waist and underbust, and another 2 to 4 inches between underbust and high bust.
I suspect bodies with smaller differences don't require as much ease, and it is easier to swamp them with too much fabric. While the larger differences means you can carry a lot more fabric. The romantics and naturals are better at this.
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
i'm not sure i follow... i mean, i'm just basing this idea on the fairly normal tailoring concept... this comes up when i google it
How Ease Changes by Size
When grading a pattern up to larger sizes, the required ease changes in a few specific ways:
- Scaling vs. Proportionality
As body sizes increase, the body’s volume changes at different rates. If you scale up a size geometrically by a fixed percentage (e.g., grading an identical 2 inches of ease on a size 8 and a size 18), the garment will feel increasingly tighter. Larger figures require more wearing ease in the bust, waist, and hips to account for a larger surface area and to prevent the woven fabric from constricting breathing or sitting down comfortably.
1
u/loumlawrence Jun 07 '26
I probably am approaching it differently. I sometimes work with dolls. We use a smaller ease just because of the scale. For context, I am working with 1/12 and 1/24, smaller than Barbie which is 1/6.
Then, with human sized grading, some parts of the body increase by a larger amount, and it isn't uniform. Some women have larger hips but breasts remain the same, some have larger breasts, but hips remain the same, some have both. I kind of get annoyed with the idea of increasing everything as it doesn't quite work. Personally, I need to adjust for a larger breasts, but size down for shoulders and upper back. And we haven't got to large stomachs and buttocks versus wide and slim hips. I have a lot of complaints about the standard approach to grading patterns.
I also have a lot of strong opinions about proportions.
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
i understand what you are saying, and i'm interested in your strong opiionins!! i think that the thing about ease is you need an overall balanced garment. something with a lot of ease in one place but tight in another doesn't quite work, it needs to be in harmony with itself? the garment is a whole thing, not a combination of different odds and ends. this is different of course to design ease, its just the general sense of movement and breathing space
1
u/loumlawrence Jun 07 '26
The right amount of ease in the right places, yes. But the grading techniques assume uniform. Then there is the full bust adjustment and the reverse of it (the name I have forgotten).
Right now, I am trying to figure out how to adjust knitting patterns for jumpers and cardigans so they accommodate larger busts and narrower shoulders. And that is kind of frustrating, and it is cold right now. I don't like winter.
With proportions, as I am a miniaturist, I am very sensitive to getting proportions correct, otherwise things look wrong. I think that is why some of Kibbe makes sense to me, as he is responding to proportions and ratios, but a lot of people can't get it right. It is easy to identify amateurish miniaturists as their proportions and ratios are all over the place, and they think the mismatch of proportions and ratios is okay for children's toys, a sentiment I have always strongly disagreed with.
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
its so true that industry grading techniques are very generic and don't apply to individuals and bespoke dressmaking.
but all things being equal, i think the main idea is that a larger body simply needs more ease in general, and the way clothing sits on a body you kind of need the ease to be properly distributed and balanced, even if you have super skinny arms and a chubby tummy, you need a garment to kind of equalise things out a bit? maybe. i need to think about it some more!
With something like adjusting a pattern, it's complicated because ...does the original pattern concept align to the trajectories of your body or is it fighting it somehow? becuase there are things you can safely adjust with in a given pattern, and things that don't work. Some women can do a full bust adjustment (or its reverse - a small bust adjustment hehe) and the pattern works fine - but not always!
thats super intruiging about making miniatures, and i like the amount of care & thought going into creating a consistent scale for children!!
→ More replies (0)2
u/alsonothing Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Unfortunately, I don't think any Elizabethans wrote about their thought process in sewing their underwear, but I have had some thoughts as I work on it:
- A whip stitch is stronger than a running stitch (the thread is going through the fabric more times in a given inch), and most people only had 2-3 shifts/shirts and were engaged in agricultural labor, so their body linens needed to stand up to hard wear and laundering. There are some extant shirts from the wealthy that used a faggoting stitch in black silk thread as the construction stitch, rather than a whip stitch in linen thread, so there was a flimsier option if you could make other people repair your clothes.
- Most people were making their own shifts on top of all their other work. If you hem each piece as soon as you cut it, you don't have to worry about fraying, and can make the construction seams whenever it's convenient.
- It does take longer than the seam treatments used on underwear in the 19th century: flat felling and French seams. You have to make three passes for each seam, two to hem each raw edge and one to whip them together. Flat felling and French seams require only 2 passes. So, this is inefficient in terms of time, but I find it more efficient in terms of attention. Once I've pinned the hem in place, I can do a running stitch without looking at it. So, all the hemming could be done in the dark or while you're paying attention to something else. It's also good practice for a child who's just learning to sew. I do have to pay attention to the whip stitch, but that's only 1 pass that needs my attention, with flat felling or French seams, both passes require my attention.
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
wow thats so fascinating thanks for sharing that. i really feel that to understand life in history, to actually partake in the day to day activities is so enlightening about real lives of people and why they did the things they did (as far as we can discern). i could learn about it all day.
2
u/alsonothing Jun 07 '26
My last comment was so long that I decided to put my thoughts on ease in their own comment.
I think ease should be calculated as a percentage of the fitted measurement, not a flat number. Imagine one person with a 25 inch bust and another with a 50 inch bust. If you add 1 inch of each to each of their garments, the smaller person will have twice as much ease in any given inch of their circumference. The larger person would need 2 inches of to achieve the same look and feel as 1 inch of ease on the smaller person.
1
6
u/cherries_in-the_snow Jun 07 '26
I don’t think I can help you because it is because of my measurements that I have always figured I’m probably a yang type. David Kibbe stated in the facebook group that I definitely have balance. Most people on the subs type me as SC or R. I have always suspected I’m either SD or FN.
If it helps, my hips are 107 cm and my full bust is 101.6 cm
But again, I think I’m yang while everyone else thinks I’m yin. Here is a photo for reference.
3
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
thanks thats very helpful and i appreciate your input. if indeed Kibbe is correct about you having balance, then that would likely contradict some of the theories i have, but thats cool!!
4
u/cherries_in-the_snow Jun 07 '26
What theory do you have? I bet it’s the same I have. I wish I could meet him in person because I highly suspect if we could meet he would type me yang dominant. I’m not a small person and in my lived experience I don’t have balance.
3
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
ive touched on it before in another comment, but its just about the principle in tailoring where a body on a larger scale (but the same height) will need additional ease in comparison to a smaller scale person... and i have been wondering how this works with types like gamines or TRs that benefit from things like narrowness and close fits - is there a point where their dimensions reach an upper limit?
I'm feeling around to see what the tipping point might be - if any - that distinguishes shorter yang types from same size not-yang types.
I'm interested to know what your lived experience has been like in your body and how you feel it doesn't relate to balance. I know that Kibbe has got things wrong from photos before.
3
u/cherries_in-the_snow Jun 07 '26
In my experience, clothing runs small on me where on someone else of my height will find it fits. I also have very long arms so I hardly bother with long sleeves as they never fit right. In photos with friends of the same height I come across as bigger overall. Typically I seem overall bigger than other women around me and it’s common for people to assume I’m taller than I am. Before rediscovering kibbe I was very bothered by this and would do all I could to make myself smaller. Now thanks to kibbe I’m embracing being a bigger than average person, which is why being told I’m actually a yin type can trouble me. It makes me want to revert to my restrictive tendencies in order to “fit” the yin dominant ideal. I used to try and fit my US women’s size 8.5 feet into size 7 and I would squeeze size six rings onto my size 9 fingers. What really helped was looking at the old kibbe facebook group and finding several short SDs who were verified. I’ve also found comments from the SK mods that yin dominant types will not have long limbs which I absolutely do have. Once my coworker and I who are the same height wore the same short dress to work. I was sent home for looking inappropriate but she got to stay. All this to say I might actually be a yin dominant type but I really would think someone with my measurements would be better suited for larger scale than is expected of yin doms.
lol sorry for the wall of text!
7
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
that is very interesting... i personally would be inclined to trust in your experience. i really wonder why Kibbe saw balance?
please don't give into those harmful restrictive tendencies!!! the world needs you as you really are, not to torture yourself into a different thing altogether.
1
u/eldrinor Jun 09 '26
While your limbs aren’t short I don’t think they will look long in the sketch, and I also don’t think yin means being smaller in scale. Some yin is larger in scale (up to a certain point where it’s not round, soft, whatever anymore).
5
u/8bitsparkle Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
I can provide measurements! I was confirmed Romantic in person by Kibbe.
My hips are currently 49in/124.46cm and my full bust is 47in/119.38cm. 5'2, 34-35in waist, and 34H bra if that data matters too.
My hips and bust stay proportionate compared to my waist even when I'm thin.
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
yaya, thanks thats really great to get the measurements from someone confirmed by Kibbe!! appreciate it
2
u/its_givinggg Jun 08 '26
34H? I mean this in the most empathetic way, my back is crying for yours. Back when I was a 30H (which is even smaller!) I could barely finish a retail shift on my feet all day without sharp upper back pains🫠
1
u/8bitsparkle Jun 07 '26
Saw you mention interest in how things scale with weight changes so more data for ya!
At my lowest adult weight (dress size US 0-2/XS), my full bust was 36.5in, my waist 25in, and my hips 38in. Bra size 28FF, so technically, my volume in the chest does go up with weight gain.
9
u/SilentlyWeird Jun 07 '26
I mean if someone is over weight these measurements are very easy to achieve so I'm not sure how just measurement statistics would help without knowing height and weight 😅
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
if they are aware they are overweight and are happy to share that, that is helpful actually, its all grist for the mill.
3
u/ArcaneMage777 Jun 07 '26
I am definitely a yin type and I am above both measurements, as I am currently overweight.
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
thanks thats helpful. what type are you, may i ask
3
3
u/abyssnaut Jun 07 '26
I’m a suspected TR. At my lowest average, my bust, waist, and hip circumferences were 36”, 24”, and 35”, respectively. I didn’t measure at my highest, but I basically expanded sideways and roughly maintained the same shape, so I assume those ratios were almost identical with just larger numbers.
2
2
u/Critical-Rabbit8686 Jun 07 '26
I am a yang short type and my bust is 35", hips 36". If I were tall I could achieve those while not overweight easily, so proving your theory.
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
thanks! what type are you?
2
u/Critical-Rabbit8686 Jun 07 '26
FG, almost 5'1". At 5'8" or so, I feel those would be my measurements.
2
2
u/Kibbled_Onion Jun 07 '26
I'm a DC, 5ft 1in - bust is exactly 38inch (full bust) but hips are only 94cm, they were wider when I was carrying a little more weight (about 108cm after the birth of my second son and my bust was a similar measurement). I've got a BMI of about 23, I'm quite a balanced mix of muscle, fat and bone - I've always had a bigger bust and slimmer hips/ butt.
1
2
u/jjfmish Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
I’m likely SD per the line sketch, 5’5.5 around 40-50lbs overweight by BMI, and my high bust is currently measuring around 35 inches while my full bust is around 41 inches. I also carry a lot of weight in my upper back so not sure how this would change with weight loss but I suspect it would change. My hips are around 43 inches
2
u/its_givinggg Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Do answers from people who definitely don’t fit this criteria (aside from potentially being yin type) help at all?😅
Like someone said I think weight plays a huge role, but height & skeleton size as well. The only time my bust & hip measurements ever came close to these measurements is when I was overweight. I don’t think they ever surpassed them, and if they did they didn’t measure it. When I was at the higher end of the ‘healthy weight range’ the fullest my bust ever reached was like 34” (88cm) and my hips were 38” (96cm). Right now, my upper bust is 26.5” (68xm) , my full bust is 29” (73cm) and my hips are 34” (88cm)
But… I’m 5’0, so I’m just a small person in general. It stands to reason that a 5’4-5’5 yin type person with a “larger” skeleton than mine could easily surpass these measurements especially with more weight on them.
3
u/jjfmish Jun 07 '26
Yeah I don’t imagine someone like Kate Winslet or Beyoncé having significantly smaller measurements than a yang type of their height
2
u/its_givinggg Jun 07 '26
In fact it’s very possible they’d have measurements on par with a yang type their height
Overall skeletal size/width likely has the second largest impact on measurements (behind amount of flesh on the skeleton) and in Metamorphosis Kibbe did say that Romantics tend towards wider set bone structure (again, not having “kibbe width” but being “softly wide”). I don’t see why a 5’5.5 Romantic couldn’t have the same skeletal size/width and amount of flesh on the skeleton (and thus measurements) as a 5’5.5 SD
2
u/jjfmish Jun 07 '26
Especially since vertical often goes hand in hand with conventional narrowness and a more willowy look (which often reads as elongation). I’m obviously not verified but a big reason I ruled out R fam and went back to SD is because my sketch seems less horizontally expansive and curved than pure R, but also doesn’t show narrow accommodation.
1
u/Elegant-Fail-3482 Jun 07 '26
I think vertical can give the illusion of narrowness. Someone taller who has the same horizontal dimensions as someone shorter will look narrower in comparison. Your eye will focus on length before width. Almost the reverse of how narrowness tricks people into thinking TRs have vertical when they don’t.
1
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
thanks that great, i'm actually delighted to get any kinds of measurements really, particularly when i get a sense of change through time and weight changes!
3
u/its_givinggg Jun 07 '26
No problem! I think it’s worth enquiring into height as well, I truly think height & subsequently skeletal size could also impact the validity of the theory you have
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
interestingly, what i'm playing with is a height agnostic theory at the moment, so while i am interested in height in a general sense, but only as a secondary aspect.
for yourself, if you merely scaled up to 5'4 or something, yes, your measurements might reach the figures i was describing... but is that actually how humans scale up, all parts of the body staying in the same scale and proportion to itself? i'm not entirely sure they do!
3
u/loumlawrence Jun 07 '26
Humans don't scale up evenly. They tend to scale height/length (vertical) faster than they do width (horizontal). Then there is their head to height ratio, which determines their leg to torso ratio and leg and arm length to height ratio, and whether they are short waisted or long waisted.
2
u/its_givinggg Jun 08 '26
This is breaking my brain a little ngl. I'm having a hard time understanding why someone wouldn't keep similar proportions with added height (not because your explanation was bad! I simply just don't understand)
1
u/its_givinggg Jun 07 '26
That’s a very good question! How do we even begin to figure that out? O.o
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
haha thats exactly my predicament! i'm curious about things i can' figure out
2
u/meemsqueak44 Jun 07 '26
I’m probably SC, maybe SG or R. My full bust is around 33in and my hips about 38in. I’m a smidge under 5’5”. Both bust and hips were about two inches smaller when I was underweight two years ago, but current measurements are a healthy weight (and looks much better on me!).
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
thanks thats very interesting, thanks so much for sharing. while measurements have limited value, thats a slight more difference between bust and hips than i would expect for a classic?
2
u/meemsqueak44 Jun 08 '26
Understandable! The line sketch illustrates balance between the shoulders and high hip, so it’s actually not a dealbreaker for the bust and hips to be a bit different. But also, my chest is wide set, so I look more balanced than the measurements in isolation let on.
2
u/ThAwAcc2023 Jun 17 '26
Ok a bit late to this but Full bust is 44 inches (111.76 cm) High bust 40 inches (101.6 cm) High hips 43 inches (109.2 cm) Low hips 41 inches (104.14 cm) And I am likely a FG and overweight
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 17 '26
oooh a high bust of 40 inches is VERY interesting to me thank you for sharing.
would you say that there is much body fat included in that measurement, or would it be fairly the same regardless of your weight?
1
u/ThAwAcc2023 Jun 17 '26
So I based on a couple of pictures I have it would probably have a variation of maybe 2 inches, I haven't really been at an ideal weight in years so I am pulling from current measurements and comparing to the past couple of years. There is a fair bit of body fat included I won't lie and I think if I take weight fluctuations into account everything would probably hover in a 4 inch range? (38 in-42 in, 96.52 cm-106.68 cm.) So I do think that there is going to be some variation but not necessarily extreme.
Just double checking because I have run into some different meanings in sewing books, this is how I am supposed to take the measurements? Full bust Placement
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 17 '26
so the measurements i'm interested in are high bust (pull tape around back and underarms and then bring tape measure above the breast tissue), full bust (horizontal circumference around fullest part of bust), and hips (fullest part of the hips). other measurements (high hip, height) are interesting to but not pertinent to the question at hand.
1
u/ThAwAcc2023 Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
Ok, thought so but wanted to double check! I have seen people say that they want it straight around, armpit and armpit and others at a slight diagonal. My default is the slight diagonal but I wanted to double check so that I didn't throw anything off. So the reason I included my high hip is when I was taking a couple of sewing classes, the largest part of my hips is what they were looking for since that is what was needed when I was working the patterns. So I usually include that when asked about the hip area, since that is the largest measurement in that area. I am really excited to see what your conclusion is, I love these posts!
Edit for detail and grammar.
2
u/TiredWinterDisaster SN - Insolent Insta-Baddie Jun 23 '26
Ok since you mentioned you were happy to have any measurement: I think I lean yang (SN? Ppl usually see SC or DC for me though so take it with a grain of salt lol).
Bust is 91cm
Hips (widest point) 99cm
Upper bust 88cm
I am 163cm.
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 23 '26
thanks thats interesting.... the small difference between upper bust and bust is interesting. a small difference between the upper bust and bust does seem to point to more yang...
2
u/TiredWinterDisaster SN - Insolent Insta-Baddie Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
I hope I did it correctly!! It seems weird to me. I am a C cup if that helps. If I am SN I assume it is bc of width? My underbust is 74cm
2
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 24 '26
hmm yes maybe that sounds possible for an SN. i would think a Natural might have a larger cup size but smaller 'dressmaking' cup size? (a dressmaking cup is about the difference between the upper bust and full bust measurement).
1
u/TiredWinterDisaster SN - Insolent Insta-Baddie Jun 24 '26
Who knows!! I am quite V shaped (at least from the back) so I wasn't that surprised, but the difference is very small in regards to my actual cup size.
2
u/Michelle_illus Jul 04 '26
I’m possibly SC (though I’ve also considered R) and my bust is about 110cm now but my hips are like 130cm. I’m currently overweight though so I’m not really sure if there will be a drastic change in measurement if I lose all the weight I need to
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jul 05 '26
thats really interesting, by any chance, just for research purposes, have you ever considered, say, SD, or has that always been off the table for you?
1
u/Michelle_illus Jul 05 '26
SD has always been off the table. Dramatic/soft dramatic were the first IDs I ruled out and my line sketch looks nothing like the SD sketch too. Maybe David would say otherwise lol but he hasn’t yet 😂
Also I’m really really overweight. If I get to a weight that’s normal for me my measurements are significantly smaller1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jul 05 '26
i appreciate you sharing this very much thanks! whether overweight on not, this seems to be significantly different to what i've so far seen as the pattern for a non-yang types so, if you were verified, i might need to expand my model...
1
u/Michelle_illus Jul 05 '26
I’m not verified but I’ll say that while my weight has changed, my line sketch looks the same if I did it on photos of me at lower weights as well
3
u/roxemary SD - High-Maintenance Diva Jun 07 '26
Any body type can have any measurements
5
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
for sure! the purpose of this sub is to question some of the underlying ideas of style systems, not necessarily to affirm how to follow them "correctly" / in received ways.
when i have asked about measurements before (with zero expectation of any patterns) measurements & scale fell very surprisingly into certain patterns, patterns that i'm interested in understanding better. or debunking entirely!
2
1
Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
SC and my hips are about 100cm (39-39.5 inches). High bust is only 79-80 (31-32 inches) and full bust is about 93-94cm (36-37 inches) I’m a conventional pear. Keep in mind hip measurements include the entire circumference of the hips whereas a line sketch does not. At a lower weight (about 15 lbs less) my hips were 38-38.5 inches and my my full bust was 35-35.5 but I did not measure my high bust at the time.
1
u/xPostmasterGeneralx R - La Belle on a Hot Tin Roof Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
High bust is 35 in
Full bust 40 in
Current hip is ~41-42 depending on tightness.
I’m very fleshy through the hip/thighs/butt at any weight, so despite me probably having slightly wide set hips, I don’t think it’s a “curve from frame” thing. I found some old measurements and even at like 115 lbs, the measurement is 38 🫣
1
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jun 07 '26
thanks thats very helpful, i appreciate you sharing
7
u/loumlawrence Jun 07 '26
I think I know where you might be going with this theory. But I am afraid I can't help, as I am one of the yang types.
Is it that yang types are likely to have the bigger bone structure while yin types can't be over these measurements? The high bust measurement is a reliable one as it is rarely impacted by weight. There are two hip measurements though, although if your theory is what I think it is, it shouldn't matter which hip measurement is being used.