Author
|
Topic: This is why I don't like this article about Monroe not being a size 12-16
|
KarkaQueen Knowflake Posts: 6407 From: In my 1st house Uranus and Neptune Registered: May 2011
|
posted December 09, 2014 09:11 AM
Link: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/marilyn-monroe-was-not-even-close-to-a-size-12-16/ I feel like rambling about nonsense today so if you don't care keep it moving. If you’re curious as to how that compares to modern contemporary fashion models, according to BluFire Model Registry, models are generally in the vicinity of a 34 bust; 24 waist; and 34 hips, which is very close to Monroe’s measurements of 35-22-35. They list the average model today at 5 ft. 8 inches, to Monroe’s 5 ft 5.5 inches. Elizabeth Hurley, who in the above quote called Marilyn Monroe “fat”, actually has around the same dimensions: 34-24-34, though is about 5 inches taller than Monroe was.
Measurements do not DEFINE how a person's body type looks. Monroe was 5"5 and the average model is about 5"9 or 5"10, it shows VERY different on various people as there are different body types such as endomorph, ectormorph, mesomorph, then the factors of muscle mass, genes, and diet that play in it too! What looks on paper is nearly always different in real life. The average supermodel is rather slim, with a banana shape or apple shaped body, Monroe's body was surgically altered and corseted to have a more hourglass look even though she was more of a pear with her small bust and larger hips and average-sized waist. I got to go but I'll finish later if I care IP: Logged |
MoonWitch Moderator Posts: 1784 From: The Beach Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 09, 2014 11:58 AM
Even by today's sizing standards, 35-22-35 puts her in a size 6, regardless of her height. And that still leaves the waist way too big on her.Of course, sizes were really different in the 1950's so it may be that a size 12 or 14 back then would be considered a 6 today. Regardless, she was a small woman compared to anyone (that's not in Hollywood) today.
IP: Logged |
KarkaQueen Knowflake Posts: 6407 From: In my 1st house Uranus and Neptune Registered: May 2011
|
posted December 09, 2014 12:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by MoonWitch: Even by today's sizing standards, 35-22-35 puts her in a size 6, regardless of her height. And that still leaves the waist way too big on her.Of course, sizes were really different in the 1950's so it may be that a size 12 or 14 back then would be considered a 6 today. Regardless, she was a small woman compared to anyone (that's not in Hollywood) today.
I was going to say from her body type and how it looked in movies and pictures [especially when she was singing "Let's Make Love" she looked a little plump, you would never seen that in major Hollywood sex symbol Stars today or even singers!] that she is around a size 6-8. But I disagree about the waist part, her waist is more than 10 inches smaller than her bust and hips [that are both equal to each other so it seems, indeed despite what i said in the OP, that she was an hourglass] and that gives her a perfect or near-perfect WHR. Size 6-8 to me is average-sized, but the average American woman right now is a size 14 so I guess she's small compared to them.
IP: Logged |
MoonWitch Moderator Posts: 1784 From: The Beach Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted December 09, 2014 03:56 PM
Oh I meant the waist of a size 6 dress on her would be way to big. She'd have to have everything tailored. Her waist was tiny compared to everything else.IP: Logged |
KarkaQueen Knowflake Posts: 6407 From: In my 1st house Uranus and Neptune Registered: May 2011
|
posted December 09, 2014 04:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by MoonWitch: Oh I meant the waist of a size 6 dress on her would be way to big. She'd have to have everything tailored. Her waist was tiny compared to everything else.
Yeah true! Tbh I would corset myself too if I had the funds.
IP: Logged | |