>>8814746Jesus christ anon, I didn't see whatever image you posted but if it was a woman who you think actually looked exactly like classic barbie, either you need your vision checked, there was extensive photoshopping, or they've used some level of body modding like corset training or surgery. Like have you ever even seen an actual human woman? Barbie has a literal point-down cone for a ribcage, the narrowest point of her waist is at the same level as her hips, said waist is almost as narrow as her neck, her legs are enough on the too-long side that on an actual woman it would be uncanny, plus her shoulders are much wider than her hips which is unusual for women and generally seen as unnatractive... are there real women who naturally are skinny, narrow waisted and have big boobs/hips/asses? Absolutely. Women who look like Barbie?? FUCKING NO anon they would definitely look freaky!
Listen, I love the old Barbie body, it's what I grew up with. My Barbies were always some of my favourite toys to play with. I'm fine with you defending it as a good toy, I even agree that the current standard body is just dull, too average and could use getting some curves back. But you're absolutely full of shit if you think it's realistic. It isn't MEANT to be. 1. it's exaggerated and extreme because it is, indeed, STYLISED, meant to look more like a pinup drawing than a real woman. 2. it was designed to look good DRESSED, taking into consideration that cloth is proportionally much thicker at that scale than on a real person. The naked body isn't the "finished" look.
Go the fuck outside and stop basing your idea of human bodies on super shopped instagram models or whatever.
