Talk:Female body shape/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proportion and width

Removed more rubbish:

"In common American dress sizing: * Petite women are 5'4 or less, regardless of dress size. Generally, though, it is size 0-12 See petite sizes * Full Figured Women (FFW) are often considered sizes 14-20, although can include size 10 and even 24+ * Big Beautiful Woman (BBW) are often considered sizes 20-24+, although can include shorter, smaller full figured under size 20"

Firstly these are not common American dress sizes - see US standard clothing size. Secondly the term Big Beautiful Woman is a sexual term not a dress size, as stated in that article ("a phrase most frequently used in the context of affirmation of or sexual attraction to overweight or obese women.")

Yeah, well, the article was originally written as a pro-BBW article (it even had another title back then), and after all this time and surviving an AfD, it still basically is the same pro-BBW article. Starting from scratch would have been ideal, but I can't be bothered to do more than point out the most obvious problems with it. It's a good illustration of what Wikipedia should not be... Fram 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope my addition of the "social conditioning to obesity" section balanced that out a little. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that it has nothing to do with the article being discussed and needs citations besides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint savin (talk • contribs) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's relevant to the article or not is, of course, up to the majority to decide, but the first citation tag (the one after Marilyn Monroe being a size 2) is unfounded since by CLICKING ON THE LINK you will see the size chart that gives you clothing size by measurements. So therefore I'm removing it, because whoever put it there (I'm assuming it was you) obviously didn't bother following links. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other descriptions - POV

Like much of this article, this section only refers to larger women - big bottoms, big chests or just big all over. It seems to do so simply as an excuse to use sexual slang and adds little or nothing to the article as a whole. andy 09:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Artificial alteration section

I deleted the following text:

"Corsets have been used for several centuries. Corsets may be used to shape the waist or as a support for injuries. Where corsets are used for waist reduction, it may be temporary reduction from occasional use or permanent reduction by people who are often referred to as tightlacers. The function of a corset is to reduce the size of the waist and to smooth the body. As such, they are most commonly used by women to make other body shapes appear to be hourglass shaped.

Hip and buttock padding is sometimes used by male cross-dressers to increase the apparent size of the hips and buttocks, thus creating the illusion of an hourglass shape. Occasionally, corsets and padding may be combined to create a significantly different apparent body shape than the true shape of the wearer.

The most extreme version of padding, which may be used by men or women, is the fat suit, which adds significant bulk to selected parts of the body to change the shape entirely."

This material is suitable for articles on clothing, sexual attraction etc but not for this article which is predominantly about the physical basis of the female shape (in so far as it's about anything at all). The fact that corsets are worn for injuries, for example, has no bearing on the subject of this article, nor does the fact that both men and women can wear fat suits(!) andy 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Err. I think that you're guessing that it is about the physical basis of female body shape. If you're not sure what the article is actually about, how can you be certain that this section is not relevant? :) I suspect that a little bit more rewording, such as adding "allowing the illusion of any female body shape irrespective of the wearer's own shape" to the last sentence could make this section more relevant than much of the other stuff in the article. :p --AliceJMarkham 13:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I still disagree with the removal of this section, although I suspect that my view of the function of this article may be different to Andy's. There is reference in the intro to cultural ideals, and I believe that artificial alterations, some of which are documented in other wikipedia articles, are relevant to this article. People who are not the socially idealised shape within their society do sometimes try to alter their shape to emulate that ideal. Hence, I believe that the "Societal impact" section might need to be renamed something like "Cultural idealisation". Arguably, anorexia is also an attempt to conform to a perceived social ideal, while the feminism section deals with the opposite - rejecting and choosing not to conform. Hence, I believe that at least the first 2 paragraphs of the artificial alterations section above should go back into the article (with some editing), along with a few more, namely reference to surgical alteration such as breast enlargement and liposuction, temporary enlargement such as falsies and padded panties (popular in some asian countries to give a more caucasian shape according to a TV commercial I once saw) and more modern forms of corsetry. --AliceJMarkham 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

2 sections same content

sections Female_body_shape#Four_combinatorial_structures and Female_body_shape#Weight_and_fat_distribution have same content namely 4 shapes: "apple pear rectangle and hourglass". try merge these 2 sections. Racky pt 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a go at merging them. I'm certain that it still needs a massive amount of cleaning up, just like the rest of the article. --AliceJMarkham 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Research reference

While looking for a better reference for the study of over 6,000 women mentioned in the article, I found this: http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volume4issue1/articles/Newcomb/newcomb_full_111_04.pdf

I think that this is the article referred to in the UK reference. Interestingly, it mentions not 4 but 9 distinct body types. It also mentions that there are more measurement points on the body required to assess the body types properly.

There are more proper research references here that might be useful to this article: http://www.tx.ncsu.edu/jtatm/volume4issue1/vo4_issue1_abstracts.htm

Anyone feeling enthusiastic? :) --AliceJMarkham 08:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/healthyweight/yourbodyshape/ Racky pt 09:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

deletion of "Other descriptions" section

Removed the following text:

In addition to those commonly associated with a range of dress sizes, there are a few other, common descriptions and terms used to describe women.

* Bubble Butt (among other slang) is often used to describe a body which distributes fat or muscle (or both) to her rear, possibly with very wide width. They can be women of pear, hourglass and even a few rectangular forms. * Busty or well-built (among other slang) is often used to describe a body which has large breasts compared to the rest of the body proportions, often regardless of the actual circumference of their chest. Busty women are, by definition, not pear-shaped. Bust volume can be in the form of fat deposited around the mammary glands, enlargement of the mammary glandsor a combination of the two. * Voluptuous is a term that has become synonymous with busty, but centuries ago it could mean child-bearing stature, particularly an hourglass shaped woman. Today it may describe apple- or pear-shaped figures, or any figure with large breasts.

This is left over from the original version of this article before the many recent cleanups; it's a hopelessly POV drool about "big" women and has little or nothing to do with the current purpose of the article.

andy 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The contributor of extra content's name was volumptry. hence volumptions seems to be some important term searched. we better keep this for little longer. Racky pt 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so! andy 09:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Give some time for article to improve. be patient. Racky pt 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. I've just reverted to remove a large chunk of previously removed stuff that had been reinserted without discussion. I have previously edited some of this text to try to make it more factual and NPOV but it still isn't worth being in the article. I'd propose that, instead of raking through the page history and simply dumping stuff back in, new text be written from scratch and referenced at the time of addition to the article. I intend to do so with a section that has previously been unilaterally removed, and will be discussing it on the talk page before I add it. --AliceJMarkham 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some expert has contributed and we should not let it go just like that. im not an expert i donno terms used in female body shape, and i cant add more to article than saving something. All the terms mentioned are dictionary terms related to article. i changed heading from "other descriptions" to "other terminologies". Thanks Racky pt 07:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm unable to locate contributions by an expert in any of the stuff that you reinserted. The statements are not factual, are poorly written and are not referenced. Even with some 30 years of experience in gender related issues and studying the variations in male and female form, I do not claim to be an expert in this field. I do, however, have enough experience to identify seriously inaccurate statements that will not be verifiable. --AliceJMarkham 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I have reinserted from version where afd tag is removed. here [1] where edit summary is close afd [2] . All terms are dictionary terms, any objections? all terms are related to female body shape, any objections? be precise in your reply. Racky pt 08:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • as for your concern about verifiability i have added reference please see last 2 edits Racky pt 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

petite http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59213&dict=CALD
busty http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=10498&dict=CALD
bubble butt http://www.metacafe.com/watch/254825/jeans_bubble_butt/ you may google with quotes.
full figured http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Full+Figured+Women
big beautiful http://www.lovingyoularge.com/lobby/index.html
shall i put back the deleted section please? ref for volumptuos is already added. Racky pt 10:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

im done boys, have fun Racky pt 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

no reply in talk page is considered as consensus in talk page. Racky pt 06:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's probably because the other editors' consensus is that your contributions are negative at best and frequently disruptive. This has been politely pointed out to you on several occasions. If you wish to edit this article please do so in a constructive manner. andy 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

your this reply and earlier reply are not considered as reply to subject of discussion. you are evading, including other user in his last reply, which says nothing about content under dispute. Racky pt 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Okay. Let's start with the fact that you asked a question then assumed consent-by-no-response in such a short period of time that I hadn't even had a chance to respond before you went ahead and re-added an unencyclopedic section that you have already been told is no good.

I'd like to draw your attention to what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Instruction manuals. - The first paragraph that you have been re-inserting reads as an instruction on trying clothes to determine fit, and hence that paragraph does not belong without being re-written in a non-instructional encyclopedic manner.

The american dress sizing terminology would be okay if it connected to the content of the article, which is predominantly about the differently proportioned shapes. As it stands, what you've been inserting is simply a list of sizing terms with no explaination of how they connect to the different body shapes. Again, I suggested a re-write to connect the terms to the article.

Finally to the slang terms. A link to a pornographic video for sale on a web site is not a reliable source. References to dictionaries only confirm the definitions of the words, which have never been in question. The issue with the content is not the words but the accuracy of the text following them. The grammer is poor as I said before. Where is a reference to "bubble butt" relating to "very wide width" (sic), and what is very wide - the pelvic bone, the hips, the upper thighs? In regards to "busty", "regardless of the actual circumference of their chest" is redundant and the final sentence would be unnecessary if the word breast was wikilinked, as that article provides much better information about the composition of breasts. On "voluptuous", a reference is needed for the historical meaning.

Hope that clarifies the concerns that I've already raised. --AliceJMarkham 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

True it needs little cleanup. but these terms were here since more than 1 year. and i reinserted the old stuff with some me added references. but my concern is if we delete these terms these are gone forever. tag section as copyedit and keep valuable information, article will improve by visitor contributions, not just from me you and him, give it enough time. rewrite wont happen if we delete it Racky pt 11:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

and if you keep this section under dispute, in that case: we can say that we deleted nothing from article from our start of copyedit, we just rearranged and formatted(compare my reinserted version with afd closed version). and deleting off some part we better leave it to some third party, what say? there is no need to be so hurry in deleting off a portionRacky pt 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is "deleted forever", they are deleted for now and can be readded if and when they are seriously sourced. There are hundreds of terms to describe different female body shapes or to accentuate aspects of their body shape ("bubble butt" is hardly a description of the complete vody shape), some derogatory, sexual, or positive. We are not a list of all terms used, we are an encyclopedia and should use the terms used in either the scientific literarure or have specific sections for terms used in specific categories (dress sizes, pron categories, ...) if needed and referenced as being generally used. Slang terms, rarely used terms, ... have no place here. Dictionary definitions have no place here either (WP:NOT a dictionary). We don't generally keep bad sections just because they have been around for a while: we either improve them or remove them, and removing them is the best option in this case. As evidenced by the remaining tags, the article still has enough problems as it stands, so it may be better to sue our energy to improve those instead of making it even worse. Fram 12:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

we close it as delete. but for readd by expert im keeping code here. The following subsection of section shape was deleted as NPOV: Racky pt 03:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Voluptuous" historically means "sensual; pleasing to the senses; arousing sexual desire". If the Powers That Be have already halfway succeeded in changing the meaning to "overweight", that still doesn't make it so. It's still a colloquial use of the term. I took the liberty of changing it in the article to "generous", which is completely contextually accurate, neutral, and not offensive. Succubus MacAstaroth 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Other terminologies

The proportion of a woman regardless of weight tends to be her first, immediately recognizable attribute noticed when she is clothed (hiding any fat distribution). Correspondingly, typical clothing sizing only represents these proportions as a whole, and not the inflections and combinational structures. Thus when choosing clothing, women should try it on to know how it fits their body shape.
In common American dress sizing:

• Petite women are 5'4 or less, regardless of dress size. Generally, though, it is size 0-12 See petite sizes
• Full Figured Women (FFW) are often considered sizes 14-20, although can include size 10 and even 24+
• Big Beautiful Woman (BBW) are often considered sizes 20-24+, although can include shorter, smaller full figured under size 20

In addition to those commonly associated with a range of dress sizes, there are a few other, common descriptions and terms used to describe women.

• Bubble Butt (among other slang) is often used to describe a body which distributes fat or muscle (or both) to her rear, possibly with very wide width. They can be women of pear, hourglass and even a few rectangular forms.
• Busty or well-built (among other slang) is often used to describe a body which has large breasts compared to the rest of the body proportions, often regardless of the actual circumference of their chest. Busty women are, by definition, not pear-shaped. Bust volume can be in the form of fat deposited around the mammary glands, enlargement of the mammary glandsor a combination of the two.
• Voluptuous is a term that has become synonymous with busty, but centuries ago it could mean child-bearing stature, particularly an hourglass shaped woman. Today it may describe apple- or pear-shaped figures, or any figure with large breasts.

---

Pear and banana shapes

what is the health of pear and banana shaped women. the article only mentions hourglass and apple shaped women in terms of health. And what would the shapes look like in women when controlled for factors such as weight? A image could be usedYVNP 03:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting piece of research

I don't have time right now to find a direct link to the research that this must inevitably come from, but a scientific correlation between body shape and intelligence of offspring looks interesting and I'd say that it's relevant to this article. If nobody else wants to sort this out, consider it a bookmark and I'll get back to it later. --AliceJMarkham 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations instead of Celebrity examples

When reading the different descriptions of the female body types, I found myself googling the celebrities to try to find images to serve as examples. I think the article could do better with simple, realistic illustrations, consistent in style, to show the difference between the body shapes from within the article. Niomi (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoulder width and shape determines body type

Interesting article. But you forgot to mention a couple things about body shape,

1) A woman's shoulder width and shape determine her body type along with her bust,waist and hip measurement. It's not only based on bust-waist-and hip, but shoulders too. I learned this when modeling,(seeing other girls from all over the planet and seeing the clients of many agencies around the globe)

Hourglass shapes (in fashion modeling and commercial work) are determined by a couple things ---visually speaking the shoulder width is the same as the hips --- waist lines are 75% of the hip measurement (60% also works) --- the bust does not have to be the same as the hips, it can be smaller by 2-3 inches, as long as the shoulders are as wide as the hips, it is the shoulder /hip visual balance that creates the hour glass shape not just the bust and hip. --- AND hourglasses never ever have pinched or sloped shoulders' An example of this description in modeling would be Iman, Liya Kebede, Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss, Linda Evangelista, Claudia Schiffer, and Christy Turlington. An example of true hourglass shapes in film and media include Sophia Loren, Lena Horn,Dortohy Dandridge, Ash Rai, Vanessa L Williams, and Natalie Imbruglia and Kylie Minogue. All of these women have equal shoulder and hip widths.

Lastly all hourglasses have this in common too, as seen with the women mentioned, all hourglasses have longer legs in comparison to torso length, and proportionally longer hands and feet, along with tapered legs. Hourglasses (that are a healthy to average weight always have these features.) Hourglasses (outside of the US) are seen all over the world, there are so many models (and non model women---short, tall, medium height) that naturally have this shape in places like Brazil, Ethiopia/Somalia (Horn of Africa), Britain, France,India, Japan, China, etc...

Apple Shapes, This is the second most common shape in modeling besides the hourglass,apples are rare in the world and I've mostly seen them in North America (in people of Native AMerican descent), the Middle East populations ( including North Africa), and Scandinavia. Apple shaped women have shoulders that are equal in width to the hips or a little bit wider than the hips. Apples usually have long legs (that are skinny compared to the top half), waists that are about 80%-90% the width of the hips, and the bust is always bigger than the hips.Overweight apples carry extra pounds along the waist but keep great looking legs,and also carry weight in the upper arms, never in the upper or lower hips(buttocks to upper leg region). An example of apples in the media= Gwyneth Paltrow, Brittany Murphy, and Tina Turner.

Pear Shapes, This shape is not usually used in modeling (because most models---with the exception of Kate Moss and Twiggy) are usually tall (at least 5ft9 to the 6ft 1 range) but is seen on TV all the time (in particular BET, and CMT).

Pear shapes are common among all ethnic groups and are seen most heavily in West Africa,Ireland, the southern part of the USA, Mexico, and less rare in Asia, East Africa, and Northern Europe. Pear shaped women (that are light weight or average weight) always have tiny upper bodies, long torso, shorter legs (in comparison with the torso), short arms and legs, and have hips that are visually much wider than the shoulders.

I have seen very few pear models, but I did see like one or two. Since all the girls were similar heights and weights--- these were their bust/waist and hip,measurements,

Slim Hourglasses were usually like 34-24-34, 36-24-36,36-26-36, 36-25-36 or 35-25-35; B/C cup bra. Slim Apples were along the lines of 39-28-34 or 36-26-32, 40-26-34 sometimes 36-27-35; C/D cupor bigger bra. AND the Slim pears were like 30-23-38, 28-24-36, always a AA cup.

Some pear models get implants to balance out their figures as well as pear tv and movie stars. I don't know if any of these people mentioned had work done, but implants do not change a pear shaped body because the shoulders are always really tiny, and the hip bones are wide.

Pear examples in the media are: Tyra Banks, Beyonce Knowles, Janet Jackson, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Ashley Judd, Tori Spelling, Jennifer Love Hewett, and Paris Hilton.

Lastly, I've seen the ruler shape quite a bit (not as often as the hourglass or apple) in runway modeling.

Rulers are straight up and down. Some rulers have shoulders slightly narrower than the hips, but most have hips equal in width to the hips. Rulers are called rulers because they have pretty much the same measurement for the hips, waist, and bust.All the rulers in modeling are like 32-27-32 or 34-26-34, 34-27-35. Rulers usually have medium to long legs, and medium length torsos, and long to medium hands.

Some rulers in the media include: Demi Moore, Thandi Newton, Giselle Bundchen, Wynona Ryder, and Jennifer Morrison.

Rulers are all over the world, but are fewer in population than any other group.

When discussing female body shape it is important to include shoulder vs hip width, leg length, as well as bust-waist-and hip measurements. signed Marla

Hi, Just a correction to this article. I have a dressable magnet of Marilyn Monroe on my refrigerator. There is no way she weighed only 118 pounds if she was 5'5" - she probably weighed closer to 125-130. I am 5'4" and have smaller upper body than she did, and I know what a 118 lb. body looks like - much thinner than she was. It really doesn't matter what she weighed. It's just that you are giving a completely false ideal of body type and associated weight to readers of this article. 69.144.84.214 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)June 13, 2008

I was going by the measurements stated in the Marilyn Monroe wikipedia article, which originated from her Playboy centerfold stats. Body type and associated weight? Are you saying thin women can't be hourglass-shaped with big knockers? Because I'm 5'8", 127 lbs. (that's 0.3 BMI points lighter than Marilyn) and quite hourglass shaped at 37-27-37... "curves" are not solely the territory of fat chicks, sorry to burst your bubble... I know, I know, it's the last thing you had left to cling onto. Again, I'm going by her documented measurements; I didn't just make the whole thing up. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Because clearly Playboy is a reputable scientific publication that would never, ever twist measurements in order to make them sound more appealing to readers? Sorry to burt *your* bubble, but I had to edit the main article here. Quoting the reference is OK, but presenting it as indisputable fact in the main article is another matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.90.219 (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to add that the average circumference of an adult human's head is about 23 inches. Have a check on the mentioned measurements if there is a suspicion of anorexic values involved. 88.105.62.180 (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe's measurements varied widely in her lifetime and chances are high that she did have a dress made from a 1950's size 16 pattern, what would today be about a size 10 pattern, or a size 7/8 from the average clothing retailer. 24.68.235.156 (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that shoulder width should be taken into account to determine in which body shape category an individual falls. It doesn't make only sense visually/aesthetically, but from a biological perspective as well: since we're talking about fat repartition between the upper and lower part of the body, shoulder circumference (and probably underarm circumference too - that one has been ignored for years, but is currently part of the European standard for determining bra sizes, since it's the only way to get an idea of how wide the torso actually is regardless of breast volume) is just as relevant as chest circumference, if not more. Focusing on chest only is very misleading, as "in the real world" (as opposed to the standardized world of mass-produced female garments) female breasts can come in all sizes and shapes (and see their volume vary widely, for instance after pregnancy. And lose firmness, resulting in a smaller chest circumference, for the same fat content), regardless of bodies having similar weight gain/weight loss patterns, as far as the upper and lower parts as a whole are concerned. The current description of the hour glass shape is inconsistent with itself

"the waist circumference is approximately 70% of the chest or hips circumferences, which are virtually the same"

"Body fat distribution tends to be around both the upper body and lower body. This body type enlarges the arms, chest, hips and rear before other parts, including waist and upper abdomen."

From a biological perspective, why focus on chest only when arms (hence shoulders) are just as relevant? Also, weight gain/loss patterns are more relevant here, from a metabolic perspective, than the strict static ratio between chest and hips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.90.219 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted

i deleted some stuff of here that had no links with the and they sounded like Personal Point Of Views not facts so if you want to put them back up please state why and reasons here and i might agree they should be on here thank a lot.Veggiegirl (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Social Conditioning to Obesity

I wrote that section to counterbalance the anorexia section. Not necessarily because I thought it was particularly relevant to the article, but because I figured if the article has a section decrying the evils of skinny role models, it should certainly include the evils of fat influences too, no? (Which are obviously much more pervasive in the U.S., lol). In content type and relevance to the article, my section is identical to the anorexia mumbo-jumbo. So why are some people attempting to delete my obesity section and not its evil twin? I suspect a few "Americans" got a little disgruntled reading my stuff. If my obesity section goes, the anorexia one goes with it. No more POV bullcrap, I say. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• rolleyes* Yes, because the United States has a monopoly on obesity. Go f*** yourself. 129.59.100.182 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the remainder?

>> A study of over 6,000 women carried out by researchers at the North Carolina State University around 2005 found that 46% were Banana (rectangular), just over 20% Pear, just under 14% Apple, and 8% Hourglass.

46+20+14+8 = 88%. What's the last 12%? =) Ibanix (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

obese enough that there was difficulty in determining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.239.107 (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirected here, maybe a mistake

I got redirected here via a link to "Voluptuous" on "Brick_House_(song)". Perhaps the word voluptuous should link to Wiktionary, and not this article which doesn't even contain that word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.194.177 (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Correction: No longer contains the word. Still, isn't Wiktionary a better destination than generally-related articles for basic vocab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.194.177 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Voluptuous can be a figure / body shape... The same I did for Busty. Theres more to that however. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)