I am a 36DDD and am 5'7" and weigh around 140lbs. Finding tops was a real challenge until I found the right bra. I have a Natori and a couple if Wacoal bras, but it was not until I got the Wacoal Awareness bra that I found the great transformation. In addition to being the most comfortable bra I have ever owned in my life, my tops fit like they have never fit before. I even went out and bought some tops I never even would have considered before.

I am now a firm believer that undergarments can help you look better in styles you may never had considered before.

Actually, Aziraphale, my chest measurement is 34 inches (below bust) and my chest measurement is 36 inches. My waist measurement is 26 inches and I'm short waisted, so it makes for a busty look on 5'2" me. I don't let that stop me from wearing waist-surrendering tops when I want to. I just make sure they're not too oversized. They need to fit properly across the chest and not be too flowy, if that makes sense. Hope this helps. Remember we all have things we have to dress around. I've had 4 children, so I have to deal with a stomach that's not flat anymore. The best advice I can give you is to think about the positive aspects of your figure and enhance those whenever you can. That's what I do.

Actually, Gaylene raises a good point. I know that you must look amazing in slim pants. But if you can't go "fluid" up top all that easily, how about fluid on the bottom? I.e. some fancy track pants or similar. You have your Dres and we know those work. So what about an update to some dressier bottoms to take your mind off the top?

I think it's also not just breast or bra size -- it is shape that is relevant. After all, I am a 30D. But I look positively flat chested! This is because my boobs are widely spaced. A woman with the same bra size whose breasts were closer together would have far more "projection" than I do. So we can throw around bra sizes and cup sizes and measurements until the cows come home (ugh) but individual bodies are just that -- individual.

Betty Crocker -- oh, OK, thanks for the clarification. That explains why your family members describe you as "busty" when in fact you are a B cup. It's all so complicated! Like Suz says, we're all individual. I have a small rib cage, which I guess means my breasts are closer together, which in turn probably makes them appear larger than they actually are. I'm whining about something really silly, anyway, because I'm not technically what anyone would call "busty". I'm just somewhat bustier than one would expect given the rest of my frame -- and I also wish I could throw on any old top and look like Keira Knightley!

Lara, thanks for the tip about Wacoal Awareness bras. I will try it. My current favourite bra is Wacoal, actually, but it's a lighter support one. The Awareness bra has massive straps that won't work under a lot of my open or lower necklines, but perhaps it will provide a slight squashing effect that will be just the ticket under a button-front, collared shirt.

Gardenchick, thanks for the commiseration.

Gaylene, I do have a number of fluid tops that are "just flattering enough". I just wish they were more than that. I wish they were fab! I guess what I really need to do quit my whining! Lol

Aziraphale, I'm not sure I'd want to be as flat-chested as Keira Knightly (though she is beautiful IMO), but less bosom would make it easier to dress. I feel your frustration.

Keira Knightley's body is my idea of perfection, flat chest and all. (Her face is amazing, too! And she's a fantastic actor. I can watch her for hours).

I suspect I am in the minority in my feelings about breasts. I simply prefer tiny ones!

I have a small rib cage, too -- 29 inches... so it's not just that -- it's where they sit on the chest, and mine are so far apart they might as well be different continents, LOL.

Anyway--- I do hear you. And feel free to whine all you like. When I am feeling upset about much bigger things, I sometimes catch myself focusing on my short legs. Why oh why are they so darn short? I mean, really!!!

And, like you, I feel this less when I am naked than when I am clothed. Interesting.

I think we are sensitive to anything that feels out of proportion. Maybe it is the artist coming out.

Which, when you think of it, is a good thing.

I echo Suz & Gaylene's thought - I am much happier with my body naked/in gym etc clothes than dressed. I try to keep in mind that this really does mean, it's not me, it's the clothes!

And yes again to body angst typically being a way to deflect professional-life angst onto something seemingly more tractable.

Suz -- "...so far apart they might as well be different continents" hahahaaaaa

I swear, I can't tell by your pictures. You always look perfectly proportioned!

Suz, Gaylene, Cinnamon Fern -- funny how we are more satisfied with the basic undraped form of our bodies. This is probably a good thing, actually. I have often wondered -- would the rampant body dissatisfaction of contemporary culture be mitigated somewhat by made-to-order clothes? I mean, I'm sure, in past centuries, that people still appreciated the shapely youthful female form (we are driven by biology, after all), but clothing was not mass-produced. Everything you wore was literally made for you (OK, if you were wealthy enough -- otherwise I'm sure hand-me-downs were the norm!). I bet that prevented a lot of self-criticism. Also, people's bodies would have been less on display in general -- what with all the voluminous skirts etc -- which would limit comparison. Don't you think?

I do think. And people were perfectly accustomed to altering what didn't fit. There was no expectation that things should fit immediately, off any rack. More recognition that bodies differed. And less emphasis on specific body parts and more on an overall nice "figure" (whatever that meant in different periods).

Standards of beauty are more flexible now in many ways, and that is definitely good, but we tend to feel them as more rigid. It's interesting.

I wonder if some of the dissatisfaction comes from the inevitable comparisons we make between our bodies and the bodies we see in the media images that surround us. Even catalog models these days represent an almost unattainable perfection thanks to cropping and photoshopping.

Honestly, if I compare my 65-year old body to others that I see in the gym, I don't think I'm half bad for a woman my age. But, if I compare myself to the images of "older" women in featured in magazine spreads, I am conscious of my wide-spaced boobs, longish torso, the non-existent indent where I ought to have a waistline, short legs, "athletic" calves, big feet--and so on. Depressing. And it only gets worse when I see a cute top transformed into a lumpy mess on my body in a dressing room. Maybe it was easier a couple of hundred years ago when your ability to compare yourself to others was more limited--or the clothing was bulky enough to hide your shape?

Ha, Gaylene - that is all so true. Yet another reason YLF is good -- seeing clothes on real human bodies.

Elisabeth, I have the sort of body on which my boobs threaten to subsume my head. So I promise you, I get the challenges of dressing around one's bust. And I also promise it can be done.
I have to echo Caro on the brilliance of asymmetric hems. They prevent the garment from morphing into a full-blown balloon. The other thing that helps, apart from the best possible bra, is more substantial fabrics. I'm not necessarily talking about heavy or bulky ones, just textiles with enough heft to drape a curve rather than floating off in its own orbit. Tissue-weight garments are disastrous on me, and lovely light silky fabrics that I love so much don't usually work unless they have something to anchor them. A lot of the time lately asymmetry is that anchor.
I'm sorry life is being unkind to you lately. I hope things look up soon.
Your reply