What Are the "Perfect" Bodily Measurements?
On December 28, 2008 at 5:34 PM Pacific Time, Demetri wrote:
Yeah, but were your calves 5 inches bigger around than your kneecaps and your forearms 28 centimeters bigger than your elbows?
However, yes, my calves were, and my left one still is, big and misshapen from the lymphedema problems I had.
Not to mention that, at the time, I had a pannus that was down to my knees and had open and seeping wounds on it, and on my leg.
So, yeah, I had my issues. That's kind of a stupid and insensitive thing to ask.
Do I still have these issues? Not to the same degree by any means. But I'm also not going to judge someone else on thier physical issues.
I'm sorry, but judging someone on thier size is just as bad as judging someone by thier skin color, sex, or ethic origin.
It's just not right.
On December 24, 2008 at 4:41 PM Pacific Time, Batwingsman wrote:
I was watching a '60s movie earlier today and one of the guys in the show was telling another fellow enthusiastically how his g/f had the "perfect" dimensions of 38-28-36 .. 
I had always heard that the" perfect" or ideal measurements for a gal are 36-24-36 ...

So, has the ideal gal "downsized" over the last few years, or which one is right?

As to us guys, I read a long time ago that our chest should be like 4" or 6" (can't remember which) bigger than our waist, with our upper arms and calves about the same, with the thighs 50% bigger than those ..

My chest is 42 and my waist is 32 so way out of proportion. I think it's okay if you're oversized on the chest and undersized on the waist though.