>32.5 in underbust at 5'8
i should fucking kill myself. it's insane how this one thing fucks my entire life up and it's the one thing that can't be fixed with surgery

>>40495979 (OP)
chill. i got 38-40 in at 5'10

>>40496017
yea ik it could be worse but i was looking at the timeline thread and crashing out cus almost everyone ribcage mogged me. i could so easily be like that if i just didnt have this shit and it's incurable. i cry almost every night over this

>>40496077
32 is pretty common for cis women, ur good. trust me

>>40496101
yea cus a lot of them are fat

>>40496150
u can keep bitching if u want when ur perfectly fine. get over yourself

>>40495979 (OP)
Seriously chill I'm at 36 and 5'10 and I'm stealth. This board is rotting people's brains

>>40495979 (OP)
luckshit kys
42 underbust at 6'1
its over 4 me

>>40497089
Rip

>>40495979 (OP)
32ish inches at your height is probably okay but really what makes the difference is what the rest of your figure is like, if you have curves it's fine. i have an almost 32 inch underbust at 5'9 but my hips are 42 inches and my waist is 29 or a bit less so i think i'm good. to quote the blue-yellow site itself "understand that it's all about PROPORTIONS" lol one measurement on its own doesn't mean much. the only thing i'd consider is that women with bigger ribcages tend to also be busty,

>>40496101
it is not...go outside and no cis woman actually has a ribcage that small, stats are just driven up by obesity as the other anon said

>>40496101
go outside and look at how much fat the average woman has around their torso
for a skinny tranny anything above 30in is never passer at any height

>>40497871
>understand that it's all about PROPORTIONS
This is only true for women of normal height, women of freak height lik 5’10 and above usually just have really long legs

>>40496859
>36 and 5'10 and I'm stealth
doubt
unless ur really fat ur prob really fat

>>40496150
Unless you're like 5 foot tall, 32" underbust is normal/skinny. You're one of those idiots who think ideal weight range is universal for all heights and frames, aren't you?
>t. afab

>29" 5'11"
is it over?

>>40500354
that's perfectly normal

>>40496150
Not really. Lowest an underbust size gets on all of these skinny Victoria's Secret models is a 28. The handful of 5'8s have underbust measurements around 31.5 to 34.

https://thevsangelz.tumblr.com/measurements-and-description

>>40500501
theres no fucking way thats right. they either have to be using the +4 method or just straight up lying. do they look better just cus of their whr?

>>40500501
also i just measured my bra size and it ended up being like a 34B so bra size isnt the same as underbust

>>40501169
I don't think anyone uses the +4 method anymore. Victoria's Secret certainly doesn't on their site, and it also tells you the band size of their models.
>do they look better just cus of their whr?
Well its that plus the professional photography (and a little bit of photoshop lol).

>>40501650
honestly i think almost all of them are also wearing loose fitting bras for aesthetic reasons. i bet they could wear like 30D or below and have it be better fitting

>>40501650
Victoria’s Secret uses +4. Ur insane if you think any model has a fucking 34” underbust

bump