Women's clothes sizes

Malthusian

Scorpio33 wrote: »

They should be standardised, so a size 12 is x inches etc.

If they wanted it standardised the labels would just say "x inches". There would be no need to convert an pre-existing and commonly-understood standardised scale into a new one.

Izadora

Gloomendoom wrote: »

You get that kind of problem whatever dress size you are though.

You do but in the past 20 years I've been a size 12, a size 24 and every size in between and find clothes shopping the biggest struggle at a 16-18.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I know a couple of young girls who claim to be a size 6 yet, stood together, they look like a couple of barrels.

That's just as likely to be due to squeezing themselves into too-small clothes as the actual cut of the garment though.

LavenderBee

Izadora wrote: »

That's just as likely to be due to squeezing themselves into too-small clothes as the actual cut of the garment though.

Oh don't get me started there... it is far more flattering to wear your actual size than squeeze into something 2-3 sizes too small. I think that even as adults we can sometimes worry about revealing our "true" size; and I bet a lot of teenage girls would rather walk over hot coals than admit that they can't borrow their friend's size 6 top, because they take a 12.

Red-Squirrel_2

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I know a couple of young girls who claim to be a size 6 yet, stood together, they look like a couple of barrels.

What a creepy way for a grown man to describe young women he knows. Get on the naughty step with moneyistooshorttomention!

gettingtheresometime

Scorpio33 wrote: »

This is what frustrates me as a man about womens clothing sizes.

They should be standardised, so a size 12 is x inches etc.

Today, different stores have different sizes depending upon if they want their clothes on skinnier people or not, then you have the catwalks telling models who are a size 8 that they are too fat.

With all these things, it is no wonder that many women have body issues.

Until the clothing sizes are standardised, nothing will change.

(rant over).

Many moons ago there was an attempt to do this - I know because I took part in the survey!


Obviously nothing ever come of it!

Gloomendoom

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

What a creepy way for a grown man to describe young women he knows. Get on the naughty step with moneyistooshorttomention!

You're right. I should have known better.

I've edited the post.

missprice

Meh , clothes shopping is a major irritation. I have just been to m and s for bras. I took 18 into the changing room, only 4 actually fitted decently.
I can be a 12 in next or river island but much much bigger in primark and Matalan.
I would love clothes to just be sold in inches or centimetres.
I also have abnormally long legs (not really but 3inches longer than standard) so standard 27 inch leg flaps around on my shins somewhere. I really hate clothes shopping

Gloomendoom

missprice wrote: »

I would love clothes to just be sold in inches or centimetres.
I also have abnormally long legs (not really but 3inches longer than standard) so standard 27 inch leg flaps around on my shins somewhere. I really hate clothes shopping

Perhaps the NATO system of clothes sizing should be introduced. For example, trousers/shorts have three measurements: leg length, waist and bum.

missprice

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Perhaps the NATO system of clothes sizing should be introduced. For example, trousers/shorts have three measurements: leg length, waist and bum.

Yeah, make it happen please someone.

NBLondon

Gloomendoom wrote: »

To my engineering oriented brain, bras should have a cup size proportionate to volume and a back size. A C cup for a 28" back bra would have exactly the same volume as a C cup for a 40" back bra... and so on.

Now that's closer to the old system referred to above - which was Cup Size = Difference in inches between Rib-Cage-under-Bust and Fullest-Part-of-Bust. So one inch =A, 2=B etc. Which assumed that all bosoms were the same shape and size increased in proportion (or in the case of 1950s designs - were squashed into the same shape). As I'm sure you will know - this isn't the case and the proportions vary. So decent lingerie designers might come up with slightly different structural designs at different sizes - which makes them more expensive plus different makers have a different scheme. Your initial plan of looking at the labels of something you know she likes was a good one!


Izadora is quite right - sizing assumes that we all fit into one (or a few) general patterns and scale up - which isn't realistic for more than about 60% of people. Height is another one. Short, Regular and Long in trousers is about as far as it gets. For men - this used to be a hassle in buying suits - there was a standard 6" between chest and waist so e.g. a 40" suit jacket had 34" trousers and you couldn't easily buy as separates until the 90s.