Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
It's RIDICULOUS. I've seen women who should be 14-16's, in 8's. It's absurd that marketers are somehow selling that, successfully, to women (and men). With men, it's harder because they've used measurements for ages--44 long and the like--but they have messed with the S-M-L sizes enormously, pun intended.
You gotta wonder how it is that people are so willing to be gullible to fall into that crapola. "Oh, look, this 8 fits me, I'm going to buy it!" grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
|
Well, I did 'know' (as in, work at the same company, but not even direct colleagues) women who wouldn't buy certain brands of clothing because of this. I heard them talking about that often enough. "Don't buy brand XXX, they have stupid sizes. I have to get a LARGE to make those fit!"
So if women themselves are looking for the smallest size label possible, it's no wonder the XL of the 1980's has become the current S or something. While clothes shopping with my GF (she hadn't done international shopping before, and doesn't have a credit card or PayPal), we've actually encountered brands marketing sizes XXXS, XXS, XS, S, M and L. With one of those, she would have had to get an XS. It makes me think their sizes REALLY are XS, S, M, L, XL, and XXL.
Does it really matter? No. But psychologically, it apparently does.
This is even true for my GF, and it makes her uncertain when she has to order sizes that are larger than she's used to. (Which she ran the risk of, by ordering from countries were women are generally less tall and smaller than she is.) She is not skinny, not fat, but right smack dab in the middle of the 20-25 healthy BMI range with 22.5. With 23-24 (fluctuating...), I'm 'officially', fatter, but she thinks that's a load of BS.