I remember that Jackie Kennedy was “a perfect size 10.” Ha! I think that would be a 6 now. Audrey Hepburn’s dress that she wore to the Ascot Races in My Fair Lady can only be worn by someone who is a Size 0. Consider that this is very close to the same time that the “perfect size” was 10 and you can imagine the influence that Audrey’s thinness had on the fashion industry and young women’s weight in the 1960’s.
If you want to know what the ideal had been, take a look at Joanie on Mad Men.
I can’t remember whether it is Bloomies or Nordstrom that has new “Contemporary” sizes. Yikes! I just went up a size without gaining a pound! I hate them.
Exactly. From the opposite perspective, I am tall, about 5’11’’. At my current (ideal) weight I am about a size 10. Makes me sound like a fat ass, right? Nope, I look well proportioned and even on the thin side. Several years ago I had a stomach issue that made it hard to eat, and I ended up going down to a size 6. I looked anorexic and unhealthy. Much like a model.
I don’t think it’s physically possible for me to get much below a size 4, because there’s this thing called bones. Even with no flesh on my hips, the bones require a certain minimum size, and it sure as heck ain’t a 0. Anyway, I’ll stick to my size 10 and look just fine, thanks.
The point is, you have to consider height and skeletal structure – not just dress size.
Because then women would have to deal with knowing that they had a 30" waist (or whatever). Heavens! You can’t just throw my non-modelness in my face daily like that!
(FTR, I’m a woman. Like everyone else here, I find women’s sizes nonsensical and obnoxious. We’re not shrinking flowers, we just want something that fits. So much the better if we can find it without trying on every pair of jeans in the store. I also think that whoever said that it’s just to keep women in the store longer is on to something, there.)
Since there’s a bit of a hijack about men’s pant sizes, there’s an interesting thing about the waist measurement: You don’t wear your pants on your waist. On the other hand, if you buy 34-34 jeans, they won’t be 34 inches around the top, either.
This may be just a coincidence, but my actual waist is the same as the waist measurement on my jeans. The pants, however, are a few inches longer to accomodate the fact that I wear them down on my hips. So my pants (29 inch waist) are actually 34 inches around. I haven’t washed them in a while, so they’re a bit stretched out. On the other hand, my actual waist measurement is 29 inches. It’s all very creepy.
For me my waist is always one inch smaller than ladies jeans on a waistband size. I’m in 30 jeans & have a 29 waist… Problem is finding the 33 to 34 length in ladies jeans, it used to be difficult for me to find long enough jeans, but luckily kids nowadays sprout up like weeds and are even taller than me! I wore skirts or boy’s jeans until I was 30 because of this, and now I can wear ladies jeans - yay!
Here is a good example of how sizing doesn’t mean shit for how someone looks. I’m about 5’11" and a size 6 and nowhere near too skinny/anorexic like the poster I quoted above did at that size, and we are close to the same height. Stomach is flat but it and everything else still jiggles and pooches when I sit and etc. I don’t call myself fat but I could be noticeably smaller before I started to look too thin - and I’ve been a 6 for over a year (multiple stores/brands of clothes) but I’ve been very toned and tight and also more like I am now, softer and not that toned at all. Trust me I looked a LOT better last summer at my toned size 6 than I do now at my “I’m lazy and drink a lot of beer” size 6. But it was just muscle turning back into fat and therefore no significant weight gain, but a big looks difference while staying the same size.
Aside from height issues, an individual woman’s chest/waist/hip measurements often do not match up perfectly with one dress size. A lot of women buy tops in one size and bottoms in another. Finding bottoms that fit properly can be a struggle for women whose waist:hip ratio doesn’t match up with a standard size. Women with very different body shapes can wind up wearing the same size, because a woman with a size 6 waist and size 10 hips, a woman with size 10 waist and hips, and a woman with a size 10 waist and size 8 hips would all need to wear size 10 pants.
What does a size X look like? Don’t any Dopers watch QVC fashion shows? Lots of X and larger. In fact, one of these shows so impressed me that I was inspired to write the following poem, entitled “Fashion’s Sad Lexicon”. With apologies to Franklin P Adams.
These are the saddest of possible words,
One X to two X to three.
A group of large ladies, too bulky for words,
One X and two X and three.
Gulping desserts with unrestrained passion,
Then bursting anew the limits of fashion,
These gals underwent a most startling expansion,
One X to two X to three.
I was going to send it to QVC but my wife wouldn’t let me.
In pants it means “short inseam.” I am 5’8" and there’s nothing small about me, except my inseam is short while my torso is long. So my pants need to be “petite.” I’ve never seen tops labeled as “petite” just occasionally “long”. Those are a godsend if I can find them.
I’m surprised everyone is saying how big Old Navy clothing runs. Because in my experience, Old Navy’s un-numbered sizing (S/M/L/XL/XXL) is nothing close to being too big. At least as far as XXL goes…most everything in the world I could wear as an XL or XXL but even at my lowest weight Old Navy’s women’s XXL was comically too small. Even the men’s XXL became much smaller at some point, as I used to fit into those well but now everything is tightly cut. I guess they want to discourage too-fat people from shopping there
Clothing sizes are nearly useless in determining how someone’s body looks. They change constantly over time and vary extremely between brands, and styles in a brand.
If someone wears a ‘0’ in jeans (in the same style in the same brand) they could be a whipper-thin 5’10" model-type or a rather voluptuous 5’ woman. To annoy myself, I sometimes measure the waistbands in pants when I am shopping. I have found up to 7" difference in the same ‘size’.
I’ve been sized out of a lot of stores now, including the Gap. Their 0s are loose and gape at the waistband. When I buy new clothes now I am in an XXS/XS/0/00/24/25. I am a good kid’s size 14, but arms and legs are too long to wear much kid’s stuff. I have lots of older items in my closet that are 2s, 4s, 6s and 8s. Things are changing pretty fast. When I was a teenage rjust a few years ago and even skinnier, I consistantly wore a size 2 (at the Gap too). People are getting bigger on average and clothing manufacterers have to follow the market. I should try shopping in Japan, I hear everything is very small.
And Marilyn Monroe today, if she really had 35" hips, would be wearing a size 0 in plenty of women’s brands…
‘Size zero’ has become a catchphrase for emaciated women. However most real-life ‘size 0s’ look healthy and normal. In my case, people consistantly assume that I weigh 115-120 lbs, fairly far from my real (very under) weight of 100 lbs. This is flattering (since I don’t like being this skinny) but also puzzling. I put it down to the fact that I am curvy rather than straight-up-and-down.
Yeah, Old Navy sizing is CRAZY! I normally wear a five or seven jean, but can wear a 2 there. I can also buy tops in girls’ size 14. I sort of “get” vanity sizing, but c’mon…we ARE aware!
