YOUR /FA/ GOOD READ OF THE DAY

[Anonymous No.7113004]

>When it comes to women's clothing sizes, there's some funny math going on.

>The average American woman is about 25 pounds heavier than she was in 1960. Yet women's plus-size clothing, generally defined as size 14 and up, still makes up only about 9 percent of the $190 billion spent annually on clothes.

>What's wrong with this equation? It's not that plus-size women aren't into fashion. Rather, the fashion industry doesn't seem interested in them.


http://pastebin.com/LUvTeQ9t
(article includes a lot of history about the evolution of sizes)

[Anonymous No.7113024]

>>7113004

[Anonymous No.7113093]

>>7113004

Women's sizes make no sense, OP. What was once a 12 in vintage sizing is now an 8 to make fatasses feel better. Many women can't bear to buy sizes that actually fit them because of the number on the tag, so they've inflated the sizing over the years. The exception that comes to mind is wedding dresses, which run smaller.

That's why whalewhores on tumblr always post the shit about Marilyn Monroe being a size 14. In reality, she was like a modern size 8 when she wasn't in shape on set.

[Anonymous No.7113143]

>>7113093

Also, I imagine plus-size women have to buy fewer, higher quality items. Large bras are expensive as shit, so a plus-size woman will maybe buy two Lane Bryant bras for 80 while thinner girls buy five Victoria's Secret bras for 120. Cheap clothing can look good on a thin, model frame, but you need tailoring for plus sizes.

[Anonymous No.7113190]

>>7113093
Whalewhores on tumblr are probably about as prevalent IRL as actual 4chan sperglords. Thankfully.

[Anonymous No.7113204]

>da calfs on the bitch in theb ack

jesus

[Anonymous No.7113224]

>>7113093
what i really dont understand about women sizing is the numbers
men pants go by waist and height lengths
theres actual measurements
torso shit goes by size tiers but sometimes give measurements
hats i dunno i dont look into it
shoes go by some number system never thought about it i figure its actual measurements in inches

but women
they have size 0 pants
what the fuck
does that imply a -2 pants
why would they do that
i dont think dresses are built on measurements either

[Anonymous No.7113250]

>>7113224
well, some do use waist/inseam measurements for women's pants (brands that focus a lot on jeans in particular)

you'll see that with many high-end brands, the default system for women's trousers is usually similar to that of the men's (size 1, 2, 3, or S, M, L, etc. as opposed to the waist/inseam)

[twerk it No.7113253]

>>7113224
because the bust varies considerably in women. inches sort of work for menswear because you can semi-reliably predict a man's chest size based on his waist size.

besides, it's not like numbered sizes are any more vague than xs - xl, they just seem more intimidating.

[Anonymous No.7113280]

>>7113004

oh my

im an slp thin slimane fanboy but i would still clap those fat ass cheeks
w-where can i find a fat girl that will buy me nice garms in exchange for my love

[Anonymous No.7113288]

>>7113204
It's like you've never seen an actual fatty

Where are you from?

[Anonymous No.7113331]

>>7113004
>The average American woman is about 25 pounds heavier than she was in 1960

This is the interesting story, but no one touches it, because the negative response posts on "fat shaming" have written themselves before you finish the lede.

[Anonymous No.7113340]

>>7113253
but xs implies a subjective sizing
12 implies an objective one
and again it sometimes goes down to 0
which would imply that there's nothing smaller and we know thats bs

>>7113250
specifically because women vary to a greater degree is why i find it so stupid they don't use a proper measurement system
they're using a simplified system that removes what I'm pretty sure is important information
especially with dress
those things are fuckin tight
bust hip all that shit is close
the fuck are they doin giving you subjective measurements there
i don't get subjective measurements on my pants, that shit gotta fit right or its completely useless spec with the width. and legs dont even vary as hard as tits
fuckin tall bitches with no tits and tiny bitches with huge tits and vice versa
dresses some full body shit how the fuck you gonna simplify shit like that to a single abritrary number succesfully
tops not so much variation on men really excludin the variable weight makes more sense to not have a proper measurements
but not tit tops
bra sizes are weird too but that shits standardized in its subjective sizes
a means a means a
theres no fuckin 12 means 8 means 14 bullshit
i think

but i mean fuck theres a thing
the three sizes
thats a thing referenced everywhere
but i've never seen it used
why the fuck not
it makes sense
measure the curves
the places of most variability
and build based on that
but no
they have fuckin size 0
because thats a whole lot better
fuckin inflating pant sizes
because that makes a bunch of fuckin sense

>>7113288
somewhere great prob
bet they have proper sizing there

[twerk it No.7113344]

>>7113331
left looks like a slightly chubby kid in clothing designed to make him look fatter tbh

>>7113340
>12 implies an objective one

no it doesn't, and it's very important to realize that sizing is not standardized and that it would actually not be beneficial for sizing to be standardized.

[Anonymous No.7113355]

>>7113340
You realize like none of this shit actually matters, because size charts?

It's just how they're choosing to talk about the different standardized size variations on the garment they produced. If you want to know which one matches your body best, you check the chart.

[Anonymous No.7113368]

>>7113355
>>7113344
>standardized size variations

And I want to be clear here: twerk's right, and I mean standardized among all instances of size x of that particular design, not anything broader.

[Anonymous No.7113430]

>>7113224
I'd be able to buy pants properly if I could just see some real numbers and not a bunch of makes no sense vanity sizes. Maybe they are afraid that if some tub of lard sees that she's a 42 inch waist instead of a vanity 12 or something like that she'll have hurtfeels and not want to shop anymore.

[Anonymous No.7113434]

Look. If you care about how you look, then you wouldn't be overweight. It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.7113444]

>>7113344
since when do numbers not go hand in hand with an objective counting system
they're literally math
they're used based on their development in math
they're understood based on mathematics interpretation
the us forms its entire system of lower education based on how we treat numbers as an objective system of values (if based in arbitrary foundations)

also the issue isn't that sizing isn't standardizes
if by standardized you mean that clothing conforms to certain sets of form
which actually is what XS does, within a company that uses the terminology XS to name the sizing of a jacket and a shirt it would only be logical that both shirt and jacket at size XS exist within the defined lengths for XS. If XS means something different between the jacket and shirt (because XS changes between their jackets and their shirts) then you create unnecessary confusion. At the very least, you can't use XS twice, you'd need to change it to XC or some shit i don't care. If XS means something different between each shirt produced from the company, then XS has no meaning. Using subjective terminology to describe sizing creates standardization within a company, a standardization that can't be changed without causing confusion to the user unless explicitly told of its change. XS must mean XS within the company's definition of XS.
But I'm not calling for standardization of sizing, I'm calling for measurements. Click here to read more...

[uuuuhhhh No.7113467]

fuck I hate this shit so much I want to die

[Anonymous No.7113494]

>>7113467
Except

>mid rise

It's hitting below the natural waist.

[twerk it No.7113497]

>>7113430
vanity sizing doesn't exist. the impression you're getting is actually caused by two things.

first, sizes are developed by each label individually to fit their customer profile. for costing purposes your median size should also be the size that sells the most, because it's the size you grade around and that affects your fabric consumption when it comes time to cut; say you produce xs - xl, with m being your median size, but when it goes to market you sell mostly ls and xls and nearly nothing below m, that means that you're wasting money producing garments that your customers don't want, losing money by failing to produce sizes they will buy, and wasting even more money with inefficient fabric cutting.

secondly, it's caused by the business models that mass market labels are using these days. they don't actually produce patterns, they just develop specs, which they send to their various contractors overseas, who then have the patterns done locally, resulting in what is ostensibly the same pant or jacket varying wildly depending on whether it was produced in madagascar or the dominican republic, and after all that is said and done they still don't meet those specs because the laborers are being paid dirt and just aren't very skilled. hypothetically qc inspects every x garment to make sure it's within specs and if they find enough samples are off then they should reprocess the batch (and maybe fire some people), but that costs money, and people want jeans for $19.95, it just can't be done.

[trunks !!SE08Bv/gZZR No.7113499]

>>7113004
>The average American woman is about 25 pounds heavier than she was in 1960.
>mfw i read some shit jezebel article on how the difference between models and the average women today and the difference between models and the average woman in 1960 was like 25lb or some shit
>everyone bitching about how models are so much skinnier and more anorixic than they were back in the good old days
>mfw 80% of american women are overweight now
>mfw marilyn monroe had a waist smaller than the average model today

[uuuuhhhh No.7113512]

>>7113494
I don't like that either

[trunks !!SE08Bv/gZZR No.7113516]

>>7113224
>mens pants
>labelled as 32x32
>waist measures 34 inches
>womens pants
>labelled as 0
>waist measures 26 inches

neither of them correlate

mens sizing is not better than womens sizing

[Anonymous No.7113517]

>>7113444
The reason I brought up bras was that they didn't use subjective measurements. They classified everything within a set (a-cup b-cup c-cup), with I think subsets created but I'm not too sure about that, and globalized that. So a girl with an a-cup means a girl with an a-cup in all contexts. Now, that they limited the numbers to a-cup isn't a good thing and probably why bra's seem to have such little imagination going into them (although I've done no research into bras, its history or really anything about it so just ignore that). I imagine this standardization of bra sizing was done because people didn't really want to give a shit about bras. I don't know though whatever. Doesn't seem like much of a shit is given about bras, and if that's because or created the Letter-Cup standardization, eh.
but totally offtopic
So basically I don't want shit standardized if anything the argument for proper measurement values is an argument against standardized sizing. Without having to define themselves within a set of sizes (XS S M L XL) defined by the company with little option to really vary lengths in certain areas (you're either at 32" length sleeve or you're 36", respectively S and M. There is no 34", because SM does not exist and thus 34" cannot exist.)
fuck 1500 word cap

[twerk it No.7113533]

>>7113444
>since when do numbers not go hand in hand with an objective counting system
>they're literally math

no, they're just indicators of what size you're purchasing. it doesn't matter if you use 1 - 5 or xs - xl or if you use hieroglyphics or if you draw little dicks and they have different numbers of pubic hairs on the scrotum which corresponds to the size of the garment. you could refuse to denote the size if you hated making money, and it still wouldn't matter, because you're still following the same sizing procedures back at the factory.

>which actually is what XS does, within a company that uses the terminology XS to name the sizing of a jacket and a shirt it would only be logical that both shirt and jacket at size XS exist within the defined lengths for XS. If XS means something different between the jacket and shirt (because XS changes between their jackets and their shirts)

that's exactly what happens; jackets are graded larger so that your shirts will fit inside of them. coats are graded larger so that your jackets will fit inside of them.

>If XS means something different between each shirt produced from the company, then XS has no meaning.

lots of labels produce a range of fittings, with some garments designed to fit very slim, and some designed to fit very large, and maybe some will have wide torsos with narrow sleeves, because these are possible permutations of fit.

>>7113467
yeah, that's why numbered waist sizing isn't actually ideal. if they used something abstract, like arbitrary numbers 1 - whatever, they could just discern the median waist size of their customer's demographic, grade around that, and then you'd just buy whatever listed measurement was closest to your usual fit, rather than confusing yourself over their decision to use waist sizings that don't correspond to their waistbands.

[Anonymous No.7113560]

>>7113497
>secondly, it's caused by the business models that mass market labels are using these days. they don't actually produce patterns, they just develop specs, which they send to their various contractors overseas, who then have the patterns done locally

Why is this? Can't you just send a pattern over the Internet?

[twerk it No.7113582]

>>7113560
sure, but you have to pay someone to make it, and it's a lot cheaper to lump it in with your contracts to the third world.

[Anonymous No.7113587]

>>7113582
Cheaper to have eight third worlders do it than to have one third worlder do it and e-mail it to the other seven?

Capitalism astounds me in how stupid profit making can be.

[Anonymous No.7113594]

>>7113533
>no, they're just indicators of what size you're purchasing. it doesn't matter if you use 1 - 5 or xs - xl
right
because in this context, they are using numbers as a subjective system
but it doesn't mean it implies otherwise to one not dealing with it already
This post can be written in a hundred different languages but that doesn't mean the sentence exists in a void
the words I use the way i've written it the spacing the lack of punctuation in this sentence it has meanings that aren't created by my hand
in what other major contemporary topic do numbers exist as a subjective system of measurement (ignoring that numbers are based in arbitrary foundations, because the 'objectiveness' comes after that)
Even in the opposite side of the gender scale, (male) measurements are brought back into either subjective terminology (extra, small, medium, large) or in objective terminology (36" waist, 42" length) and numbers are understood to be objective. You do not take a measuring tape and find your length and then think, does 42" length stated on the website correlate to 50" on my measuring tape? I guess I'll have to look it up (ignoring misinformation or miscuttting length, and ignoring that lengths are decided based on certain positioning. 50" still means 50" to them and to you, even if you measure incorrectly and obtain 52". You still are 50", despite the mismeasurement because 50" remains an objective value. As objective as objective can be, anyways.)

[twerk it No.7113595]

>>7113587
it's cheaper to have eight contracts than nine contracts, yes.

[twerk it No.7113603]

>>7113594
you're rambling

[Anonymous No.7113659]

>>7113594
>that's exactly what happens; jackets are graded larger so that your shirts will fit inside of them. coats are graded larger so that your jackets will fit inside of them.
I confused myself while saying the piece on jackets on shirt, I shouldn't have even made that comparison in the first place.
My actual point there was primarily that jackets conform to a standard within jackets and shirts conform to a standard within shirts, a standard defined by XS, S, M, etc. A standard which wouldn't be implausible to change to SIZE RANGE: 32" to 42", the same manner as pants. Giving the difference between 32 and 34 a plausibility as opposed to simply jumping from 32 to 36.

>lots of labels produce a range of fittings, with some garments designed to fit very slim, and some designed to fit very large, and maybe some will have wide torsos with narrow sleeves, because these are possible permutations of fit.
true but I can't say this is benefited by XS terminology versus 32" height terminology. Although I suppose this could result in a system where consumers search specifically for a clothing of xx-xx-xx size despite the designer intending it to be xx-xx+10-xx. But I feel that's more punishing those who buy with an understanding of the article, its intentions and its possible variations in order to appeal to those who buy on a snap.

>>7113594
my sticking with loaded terms makes it difficult to keep a sense of direction while not saying I don't intend (and I think I failed at that?

[Anonymous No.7113661]

>>7113340
>specifically because women vary to a greater degree is why i find it so stupid they don't use a proper measurement system
>they're using a simplified system that removes what I'm pretty sure is important information
>the three sizes
>thats a thing referenced everywhere
you realize basically all retailers worth their salt take and list the measurements of every piece, right?

[Anonymous No.7113703]

>>7113533
>yeah, that's why numbered waist sizing isn't actually ideal. if they used something abstract, like arbitrary numbers 1 - whatever, they could just discern the median waist size of their customer's demographic, grade around that, and then you'd just buy whatever listed measurement was closest to your usual fit, rather than confusing yourself over their decision to use waist sizings that don't correspond to their waistbands.
But why not instead just have the given size relate to the most variable size per person
instead of
size 1 = waist 29.5

size 29.5 = waist 29.5
even if its different style the waist still lies at the waist
also I'm realizing now that you were looking at the women's sizing as a list but I have it in my head as random increments
like i've seen size 0 which would be fine if size 1 was the next step but its size 2
and then another store will have size 14
which isn't actually 7x the distance from 2 as between 0 and 2, its just a new distance
the store with the original 0 and 2 would probably have 7x that distance, but only within the store
so why numbers, which have math behind it

>>7113661
no i don't look at women's clothes all that often but what I randomly picked up told me that they don't seem to
I figured I was probably wrong on that but if I were wrong someone would just correct me right then and there as it being low-quality clothing nonsense
no one corrected me on that tho so i took the logic up a quality tier
and no one corrected me
so
yo

[Anonymous No.7113749]

>>7113703
so why numbers, which have math behind it
when you could use XS
which have nothing behind it
or an actual listing system
of 1 2 3 4 5
non-1 increments implies things that don't seem to have reason to be implied
the primary implication that the numbering isn't a simple list and there is greater basis for their use. A measurement, perhaps. Possibly hidden clothing interspersed between what is shown before me. A multiplying system?
size 0 size 2 size 4 makes no sense for a list
size 1 size 2 size 3 makes sense for a list
we use the former
I disagree with the use of a subjectively defined system in the first place, but even within this system I do not understand the implementation. Why skip.

[Anonymous No.7113752]

>>7113703
>but what I randomly picked up told me that they don't seem to
alright, think carefully: were you in an actual store? well, guess what? when you can TRY THE CLOTHING ON, having the measurements in the store really isn't as important as you're making it out to be

if you weren't in a physical store, then show me the sites that don't take and list the measurements

[Anonymous No.7113757]

>>7113595
So you can't just have the guys from contract #1 e-mail their pattern to the other factories? Damn.

Also, captchas sometimes, damn.

[Anonymous No.7113793]

>(Abercrombie & Fitch) says it is an "aspirational brand" ...

Aspiring to be what?

[Anonymous No.7113804]

>>7113793
Aspiring to dress like the preps at your high school.

[Anonymous No.7113806]

>>7113793
sitting with the popular kids whose parents make six figs, duh.

[Anonymous No.7113812]

>>7113752
store
but im thinkin
like jeans
they stack that shit they give you waist numbers and length numbers for quick n easy browsin
because you can't really get a full idea as to what width/height the jean corresponds to when its just hangin there
shirts n jackets are easier
can b put on without goin to dressers (not always for shirts i suppose) and there's substantial differences between each shirt size. Jeans go with 20 different sizes (between the varying width and lengths) shirts go through 5
way easy
but then womens jeans
they have size 0 jeans
they've disrupted the balance of jean sizing
the whole thing falls apart
when size 0 means whatever 'they' want it to mean
there is no quick n easy buying
there is no walking in and getting a good idea
the hierarchy topples
time consumed wasted tarnished
women sent in n out of dressing rooms for the first half hour of any new store
trying to find the correct size
size 2 is near
but so is size 4
and 0 might work but it might just be where i wanna be
try them all is the only option
size 2 is slightly too far but will size 0 be the one
i dont know gotta try it on
and it repeats with the next store
and the next store
horror
but why?
there is no reason for this
why size 0, and not 30x32
30x32 gives you a definitive basis
if i am 30x32 here, i am 30x32 there
there is no question
ignoring mistakes/misinformation

and what if they did so with dresses?
where sizes are even more variable!
what if this broached the gender barrier

[Anonymous No.7115576]

ALL CLOTHING SHOULD BE SIZED BY MEASUREMENTS IN CENTIMETERS AND NOTHING ELSE
Anything else is pointless and retarded.

/thread

[Anonymous No.7116244]

>>7113812
>there is no quick n easy buying
your buys shouldn't be quick and easy unless you know the exact model from the exact brand that you want because you've already worn and been satisfied with it
you don't need the waist/inseam for that

>horror
lol
this may be hard for you to believe, but women aren't trying to get in and out of stores as fast as possible and certainly don't consider it a "horror" to spend an extra 2 minutes trying on a different size of a dress

>if i am 30x32 here, i am 30x32 there
the cut of the trousers will still vary
you may prefer a longer or slimmer version according to the cut
it's unwise not to explore your options unless you're buying, as said earlier, a specific model

>where sizes are even more variable!
that's stupid
you want designers to make dresses with variations in bust, waist, and hips? that would be nice in a utopia where no one actually has to worry about turning a profit, huh?

people who aren't retards that expect the world to revolve around their bodies realize that there is something called TAILORING, and if you're really rich, you might be able to get things made-to-measure

>>7115576
not sure if samefag

[Anonymous No.7116273]

>>7113004
If I was a fashion designer, I wouldn't make clothes for fatties.

[sieg heil !szTe0VDR1w No.7116275]

>>7113004
brands should really standardize their clothing

like

"this dior homme piece adheres to CFDA standard sizing chart size 42M"

where 42 is chest size, M, taken from suiting's (s,r,l) sizing mods,

42chest sized individuals-medium length ideal for heights 5'8"-5'10" etc
i know slim fit is a marketing term

and "empowering women" by telling them they are never wrong at they are TOTALLY A SIZE SMALL despite being 5'8" and 195lbs makes them buy more

but it makes online shopping a bitch

[Anonymous No.7116303]

>>7116244
>your buys shouldn't be quick and easy unless you know the exact model from the exact brand that you want because you've already worn and been satisfied with it
you don't need the waist/inseam for that
from the sellers perspective i figure that's what they want out of consumers, buy and get out asap
from the consumers perspective it adds additional wasted time to an already long process
it's a lose-lose setup

>the cut of the trousers will still vary
>you may prefer a longer or slimmer version according to the cut
sure but that's segmented within groups where 30x32 still means the same thing, just how it shifts between those values in relation to the leg is what's changing. 30x32 provides the same information, but obv it shouldn't be taken as all the information because it's just shorthand

>you want designers to make dresses with variations in bust, waist, and hips? that would be nice in a utopia where no one actually has to worry about turning a profit, huh
they already do, i think
pretty sure all three change with a shift from size 0 to size 2
if dresses go by size 0 and 2 anyways i don't know dresses much
i just dont see any reason to hide those values behind size 0 and 2
if they do hide the values
instead of say 30x32x34 or some shit i don't know
we're in a system where size values inflates
size 0 doesnt mean size 0 to two different companies, and size 0 might not even mean size 0 to the same company 5 years later
i see no reason to have that
>samefag
no

[Anonymous No.7117831]

>>7116303
>i just dont see any reason to hide those values behind size 0 and 2
>if they do hide the values
>instead of say 30x32x34 or some shit i don't know

They label sizes because, well, people label things. The problems inherent in this have long, long been hashed out in much more weighty contexts than size labeling, and we still can't get away from it. C'est la vie.

And many brands - the more high end, the more likely - do actually specify garment measurements or the particular body measurements it was cut with in mind. The ones that don't will have a size chart that will get you as close as is sane to a proper untailored fit on all the garments.

[Anonymous No.7117921]

blah, just follow glorious nippon example. Take measurements of every piece of garment and post them.
I can't believe high end store like Barneys still does not provide actual measurement of all their pieces. Fucking barbarians we are.

[Extreme Danny No.7117950]

Damn yall are dumb as fuck

[Anonymous No.7117978]

>>7117921
Do you realize the amount of labor that would be involved in Barney's accurately measuring every item it stocks, in every size, in all the requisite dimensions?

A quick check shows them selling 391 models of mens' pants and 989 models of womens' dresses, just for two examples. Multiply that by just two measurements for the pants and three for the dresses, by the number of sizes made...

It'd be nice to have, but literally impossible for retailers to do.

[Anonymous No.7117981]

>>7113004
she better be hiding pillows under that dress.

[Anonymous No.7118004]

>>7117978
this is just awful
it would take the same time/money for a single store to measure each of those items as it would to put all of these items on shelf
but since its not like each distributor has custom made garmets so just one person could do this

>and lots of the pants/dresses will just be different shitty prints/colours therefore same measurements

[Anonymous No.7118027]

>>7113004

>What's wrong with this equation? It's not that plus-size women aren't into fashion. Rather, the fashion industry doesn't seem interested in them.

Well then I guess me and the fashion industry have something in common.

[Anonymous No.7119116]

>>7117978
producer measures the design, as its made
no wait
not even that
the information they're given
since they have to cut it to that form
it's there already
extrapolate major points
give to retailers as a standard
bing bang boom

[Anonymous No.7119566]

How do you even design clothes for fat women? They come in all radical shapes and sizes.

[Anonymous No.7119586]

>>7118027
well, that's enough internet for tonight, won't find anything funnier

[Anonymous No.7119628]

>>7113004
Pretty sad read, luckily i am skeleton as fuck.

[Anonymous No.7119634]

>>7119566
Atleast trying to make assumptions is a good start.

[Anonymous No.7119662]

>>7118027

[Anonymous No.7119891]

My mind was blown when I found out about this designer because I thought that all the plus-sized designers were all fucking retarded and thought that ugly shit like the dresses in the OP are attractive:
http://www.kaliyana.com/

[Anonymous No.7119902]

[Anonymous No.7119904]

>>7119891
i don't understand all the models are skinny as shit
the designer isn't fat either
the fuck are you going on about

i like these designs tho

[Anonymous No.7120022]

>>7119902
impressive, I like a store in the background

[Anonymous No.7120042]

>>7120022
>supercuts