If you wear a 30 bra band at 5'10", your body isn't even allowed to appear on those body visualizer websites, no matter what cup size. They'll show you a woman with a BMI of 40, but not a woman with a 28" ribcage even though women born before 1990 are definitely still alive. Almost all of the styles for sale at a bra shop in the mall are not available above a C-cup in that band size. They don't make them for the "everyday" price range because it's considered something that doesn't exist. You basically cannot go to the store (unless it's the sporting goods store, but, good news they have some pretty fashionable shit). Dylan would still have to be above average amounts of skinny for a woman to wear a 32.
edit spelling
OT here, but totally agree on the lack of easy availability for small band-mid/large cup bras. When I was a 30-32, I wore 32 because 30s were just not findable/affordable (iirc, Natori and Wacoal were just coming into being available, but Natori then only went to a B cup (and ran small) and Wacoal back then cost about the same as it does now ($70+), so seemed very expensive. There were small band-mid/large cups bras available for astronomical prices at Bergdorf Goodman -
and there still are (link should be to 30 band bras), though again, they're priced about/ not tremendously above the same prices for higher-end bras as in the late 90s - and specialty shops, but too precious for me at the time. But when for whatever reason bra sizes came up (before this thread veered to this topic ) between my mom and me yesterday, she told me she didn't have trouble finding those 28-30 sizes way back in the day (50s, 60s, 70s). (And fwiw, we both have always worn underwire bras.)
That said, again, having a small ribcage (with or without big boobs) doesn't necessarily mean super-bony-skinny. For Dylan, whether he's a real* 32 or a 34 or or 52, he looks like a pencil; he doesn't have the typical (human, but especially men) V-shaped upper torso.
*as real as inauthentic boobs can be
There are size variations for regions too, tbf. I know bc Made in China M size is like Small for me compared with clothes made here.
Definitely. I once bought a silk suit set from
Shanghai Tang, and though I was a 00/0/2 US size at the time, they eyeballed me and deemed me a M. Turned out the S fit, but definitely not an XS or XXS, which they did carry. Looking at their site just now, their S is a 31.5 - 32.2 bust; their XXS is for a 29.9-30.7 bust. They max out in the XL at a 35.4 bust (which they claim is ~US 10).
I know there are different types of women, but the average young woman who's just growing breasts is 32 or so and they are special cases. Most women grown physically and the size increases not just due to the breasts, but the rest of the body.
Thing is, Dylan's a man wearing the size that girls wear while having the size of a man, but being anorexic. There is a lot of unhealthy issues there because I'm sure he knows that if he gains weight, his male body is gonna be more obvious.
Look, 32 does not mean anorexic. It means small ribcage and likely slim or slimmish. Sure, at 5'10", a 32 puts you in runway model proportions:
Per
some random article, for Victoria's Secret "Angels," - a sort of hybrid between runway and catalogue body proportions:
most Angels stand at 5'10" tall, wear a size six* dress, and wear a bra sized 32A to 32D.
* elsewhere I've seen a more likely range for runway of mostly 0-4.
Here's an article showing 3 VS models getting fit for bras (all are 32 band).
A quick review of modeling agencies shows requirements largely 32-35" bust for all types of modeling except plus (and that usually means measured at the fullest part of the breasts; 34 is max for higher-end modelling).
I feel pretty inadequate.
#leastproblematicwoman #kurthummel
#leastproblematicwoman #nyc
