So today I was surfing the net and I found an article with Kim Kardashian claiming she was a size 2. wtf?! yeah right! I did more research and found a video of her online trying on size 27 pants... isn't 27" a size 4? either way that STILL sounds a bit bogus to me. I was watching the video and I couldn't help but notice that after she shows the pant sizes to the viewers the camera does a 90 degree rotation to a DIFFERENT pile of jeans laying on the floor. someone PLEASE take a look at this video and tell me if I'm just going nuts. I mean... if you really wanted to prove that you weren't fat, why not just grab a sewing measure and step on a doctors scale... height to weight ratio baby. I'm not saying she doesn't have a nice figure... because lord knows I could be happy with her body, but why would you try so hard to prove it?
2
NO WAY she's a 2... in no way, shape or form is she a size 2
i don't like her body... way too much
Wed, 10/08/2008 - 5:09pm
3
A 2 now is like a traditional/European 6 (36), MAYBE 4(38). American sizing is always changing to accommodate larger measurements. It's outrageous. She is short, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if she is a 2. She also lost a lot of junk in her trunk while dieting for Dancing with the Stars. The think I find odd is how all of her weight goes straight to her butt and boobs. Now I completely question that! She claims she is 100% natural, but she has a tiny waist.
Fri, 11/07/2008 - 6:14pm
So she's saying she's the size of my 10yr old son who wears a kid's size 14? I don't think so. I had a 24" waist in high school, had the smallest cheerleader skirt and that was a 5. I don't know what planet these sizes come from. But hey, in Hollywood I'm a 6! Works for me.