stupid sizing?

[Pax]

My SO and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum, I'm 5'10" and big, she's 5' and tiny. Neither of us has much luck in stores. For some reason if you're heavy the stores assume you are short (most plus size clothes come in a 30" inseam???). My SO is almost ten inches shorter than me but our inseams are only 1.5 inches different, she is all legs with a super short torso... almost nothing off the rack fits her. The current womens clothing style of tapered in waists normally hit her somewhere low on the hips. Last time we went shopping for some nice clothes she was trying on L and XL as well!! This pretty much means I'll never be able to wear womens clothing, no matter how much weight I lose.

We end up wearing guy jeans (Lee fits her, Wrangler fits me), and lots of tshirts/sweatshirts.

[Grog]

Hey Eden, I think you should come and shop North of the Border in Richmond BC (and I could point you to a specific mall or two). There is a really big Chinese community there and very many tiny women. Men also tend to be a little smaller and for my husband (who has a true, skinny climber body type and is not very tall) it's also great, he can actually find pants and a belt that fits him out there...

[malkin]

Discussions like this always leave me wondering if there is any configuration of woman who can consistently find clothes that fit off the rack and just what that woman might look like.

As for sizing, I just pretend the letters mean something else:

L for Lovely
M for aMazing (or Monstrous depending on how the sizes run and if it fits or not)

XL that fits after you have lost weight might mean that item is for a person who is Ex-Large (i.e. formerly large)

[zoom-zoom]

Discussions like this always leave me wondering if there is any configuration of woman who can consistently find clothes that fit off the rack and just what that woman might look like.

Given how clothes fit me I have decided that she has legs that are 2" longer, torso that is an inch or two shorter, a thicker waist, but smaller butt and thighs and 1 cup size smaller boobs.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Given how clothes fit me I have decided that she has legs that are 2" longer, torso that is an inch or two shorter, a thicker waist, but smaller butt and thighs and 1 cup size smaller boobs.

This is correct, except that she has 1 cup size larger boobs.

[GLC1968]

Given how clothes fit me I have decided that she has legs that are 2" longer, torso that is an inch or two shorter, a thicker waist, but smaller butt and thighs and 1 cup size smaller boobs.

And no muscle on her arms.

[lph]

As for sizing, I just pretend the letters mean something else:

L for Lovely
M for aMazing (or Monstrous depending on how the sizes run and if it fits or not)

XL that fits after you have lost weight might mean that item is for a person who is Ex-Large (i.e. formerly large)

Late to this one. I came across a lovely and very expensive series of designer dresses in one shop labeled like this
S - Smashing
M - Marvellous
L - Luscious
XL - Extra Luscious

I've always wondered why manufacturers even want to alienate a whole bunch of women by telling them they're "large", given that the beauty ideal for women has been attached to "small and dainty" for hundreds of years. Why not just size clothes by numbers that state something that can be measured? You're not going to alienate anyone by telling them they need a pair of pants with a hip circumference of x inches or a top that fits a bust of y inches - either it fits or it doesn't, no need to mix in relative judgements like large and small. (Which all go out the window if you're shopping in a country where the population is sized differently anyway.)

[emily_in_nc]

I've always wondered why manufacturers even want to alienate a whole bunch of women by telling them they're "large", given that the beauty ideal for women has been attached to "small and dainty" for hundreds of years. Why not just size clothes by numbers that state something that can be measured? You're not going to alienate anyone by telling them they need a pair of pants with a hip circumference of x inches or a top that fits a bust of y inches - either it fits or it doesn't, no need to mix in relative judgements like large and small. (Which all go out the window if you're shopping in a country where the population is sized differently anyway.)

Such a wonderful point, lph! Numerical sizes don't imply a judgment. I guess it's easier for a manufacturer, tho, to combine sizes (such as 0-2 = XS, 4-6 = S, and so forth), and that's how this kind of thing got started. Still, that doesn't make it right.

[malkin]

Random sizing allows manufacturers to permit random construction. Since it is meaningless "Small" garments don't all have to be the same size across or within items. If the size were a real measurable number, then the garments would all have to be really that size.

[lph]

But aren't all clothes (or at least the pattern) at some point originally cut and fitted to a three-dimensional model that actually has real measurements? Or am I showing my naivety here when it comes to factory construction

They have to be based on *something*

Besides, if I were between sizes it would be a lot easier for me to assess if I want to size up to hip circ. x or down to hip circ y in a pair of pants, rather than trying to guess if I'm somebody's idea of "small" or not.

[nscrbug]

I pretty much have come to despise clothes shopping of any kind. I'm a muscular & fit 5'6", 157lbs. I wear size 8 jeans/pants, but there is no way that I'm squeezing into anything smaller than an XL on top...especially when it comes to cycling gear. Nearly every single jersey or workout top I own, is an XL. I tend to stay away from the European stuff, as it is generally cut even smaller. Swimsuits are another animal...I usually have to get a 40 no matter what. I have a very broad upper back and shoulder area (from swimming and lifting weights)...so that will always be a problem area for me. A lot of my cycling bottoms are mediums, but a few are larges depending on brand. I just accept the fact that I am the size that I am...whatever that may be.

[emily_in_nc]

Pants are the hardest for me -- I'm 5'2" but have relatively long legs for my height. I found that the Gap 1969 jeans in the short (ankle) length are okay on me as long as I wear a small heel. I used to buy a lot of pants at LL Bean, but recently their petites have been too short on me (most have inseams of 28.5"). I need a 29" inseam -- not 28", and not 30". One inch makes a HUGE difference in whether I'm wearing dorky-looking highwaters or dragging pants on the ground even w/heels. I find capris or long shorts to be the best compromise during the summer since length is not an issue, generally. And it's hot enough here in NC that capris work for months at a time.

And shoes -- shoes are hard as I have narrow feet and my measured size is a 7A -- not B, not AA, but A. Try finding that size! So I have to do the thick/double sock thing with trail runners, for example.

Eden, I do understand and was not trying to be rude, but I know it's can be difficult for larger gals to relate to the plight of the very small. You made some excellent points. Heck, I had a hard time explaining to my very tall friend at work why it was so difficult for me to carry my mtb down three flights of stairs (and why it's so much easier to carry my Bike Friday with its smaller wheels). Tall people don't realize how much more leverage it takes for us to lift heavy items up so they clear the ground. We have to lift UP from the shoulder the entire time, where they can just let something dangle, and it won't hit the ground.

[Crankin]

Don't get me started on shoes. I wear a 6 in casual shoes and sandals, but a 5.5 in dress shoes. I have a medium wide foot, with narrow heels. And my left foot is almost half a size bigger than my right.
I consider myself lucky. I wore a size 5 until I had DS #1 and then my feet grew half a size. After DS #2 was born, I stretched that a little more.
My mom wore a size 4 her entire adult life. In the beginning, my dad owned a shoe factory and back in the day, the sample size was 4. By the 70's my dad was out of the shoe business and the sample size was 7. She had to go to Nordstroms to buy shoes for my wedding and often resorted to the kid's department. She was exactly five feet tall and never had trouble finding clothes back in the fifties, sixties, and through the seventies. After that, she had the same issues as me. I recently took her wedding dress out of the hermetically sealed box, as my DIL was going to use some of the lace. I could not believe how teeny her waist was. She must have weighed 85 pounds. Even I could not have fit in that dress. Yet, she had gorgeous clothes when I was little and didn't have trouble finding them.

[jessmarimba]

Shoes....you guys had to bring up shoes....YUCK!

Haha. I (generally) wear a normal width, but my feet are so low-volume that the only shoes that fit me correctly are my chacos - cinched as tight as they go.

Oh. And my favorite jeans just fell apart. So now I get to go jeans shopping again too. Time to play the big-butt-thin-waist-athletic-thighs game again.

[Becky]

Oh. And my favorite jeans just fell apart. So now I get to go jeans shopping again too. Time to play the big-butt-thin-waist-athletic-thighs game again.

I just went through this. I stumbled across some junior's relaxed fit boot-cut jeans on Sierra Trading Post that actually fit women with thighs bigger around than beer bottles, and without being huge in the waist.

This is my current clothing pet peeve....smaller sizes that are cut for little waif girls, not powerful athletic women with leg and butt muscles.