[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
[–] little_vain 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Hams gonna ham. What mystifies me way more is the one who "gave up on actual pants" with a 27" waist and 39" hip. That's a completely normal size. I have a 24" waist and 38" hip and still manage to buy pants, although they're hard to find.
[–] Condi_Shaun 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
It got deleted.
Don't blame puberty. Blame your unbridled gluttony.
[–] Drunkest_ninja 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago (edited ago)
I never understood how big these US sizes are, so i did a bit of searching. This is what i found:
Size 16:
Bust : 40-42 inches ~105cm
Waist: 31-33 inches ~ 82cm
Hips: 42-44 inches ~ 110cm.
That's actually bigger than i am... And i'm a dude. While searching for US sizes i found out that a US size 16 = UK size 18. US literally lowered the bar so women can say they wear lower sizes. This is exactly like that south park episode about penis sizes.
Also, lowest US size was 00, the next one 0. Seriously? That's plain retarded.
Here's a fun link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_sizing also showing how size 16 actually got bigger and bigger over time. 1931 size 16 was bust 34 waist 28 hips 37. No wonder that fat whales compare themselves to Marilyn Monroe. "Oh, she was wearing size XY, i'm wearing the same, i'm not fat"
Size 40 in 1931 is the same as size 16 today. Fucked up.