Vanity sizing

[JodieO]

http://www.truejeans.com/blog/fashion_advice/vanity_sizing_alive_and_well.html

People always comment on the fact that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12/14 but because sizes have been increased slowly she'd actually be more like a size 6. I see the linked site has said 12/14 for Marilyn but she looks much smaller and also does in images I've seen of her.

I've noticed myself over the years that clothing sizes has changed. Maybe in a few more years it will be even worse? I've even noticed waist sizes not being what they should be.

So should clothes be labelled as they really are or is it ok to let everyone think they're smaller than they are. I suppose it makes people feel better about themselves and so buy more clothes but we are being lied to and, in a sense, manipulated.

 

[JodieO]

Why dont women just get trouser sizes like guys 32 inch waist, 33 leg etc. Save all this crap size 6, size 0, size 16 nonsense. Means nothing!

Well apparently the inch sizes are also subject to changes. I think it would be difficult to factor in hip size as well though, there would be so many different variations that a shop would have to stock too many. Could be wrong though.

 

[JodieO]

i thought they related, something like a size 28 being a 10 or something ?

You'd think so but it's not.

 

[JodieO]

I'm not at all convinced by the articles premise that mens sizes are standardised, they might be rather better on average than womens clothing and have fewer notable discrepancies but I've definitely found differences between jeans that have a nominal 32" waist. Now I just buy jeans for the length and wear a belt to hold them up.

I'd prefer clothes to be labelled correctly but that is a selfish thing in that I want to spend as little time shopping as possible so if I can guarantee that sizes work across manufacturers ranges then I can just pick something up and it should fit.

Oddly I've also noticed that shoes are not immune to this phenomena, I tried on a pair of 11s that were too small but a size 10 by the same manufacturer was huge.

It did say that men's clothes do have the problem too but not as much. Personally I'm with you, I wish I could go in and buy without trying as I really don't like shopping. I've never had that shoes, always buy without trying and they fit thankfully.

Guys have hips

They do but not like most women I don't think. Men are more straight up and down while women have hips that are curvy to necessitate childbirth. Not all of course, I don't have big hips at all but most women do.

 

[JodieO]

women are dumb.

Care to elaborate?

 

[JodieO]

Can. Worms. Open.

It can apply to men as well you know.

Agree there are plenty of men that do care about their weight and such is the rise of anorexia in men.

I must say though I don't know where to put my nads when wearing 501s it's like there's no nad space at all.

Lovely image there

 

[JodieO]

Actually she wouldn't be anywhere near a 6, I can tell that even from looking at her. My sister is a 8 and looks way smaller than her in every proportion. If you go by her official measurements she would be a current size 10-12. Though of course that will vary widely as each shop seems to do their own thing.

For me sizing is nothing but a very very rough guide. Normally I go into a shop and take the two nearest sizes into a changing room and try them on. Which ever size fits is the one that gets bought. The size of your body is the size of your body, who cares what is on the label. In all honesty I would rather we bin the 8/10/12/14 rubbish and put actual measurements on it instead.

From the photos I've been looking at tonight her waist size definitely puts her at about size 6 for today. She has hips but most clothes allow for that too. No way is she a 10/12 today.

Thing is not everyone want to go and try things on (me!) and even the measurements put on aren't accurate either. Plus you can't have waist, hip, leg etc measurements as the variables would be huge and most shops couldn't stock them all.

 

[JodieO]

The waist size is only one measurement. You can't size someone on that alone. Most people are sized on chest/hip measurements.

Womens sizes are roughly:

6 30.5-23-32.5
8 31.5-24-33.5
10 32.5-25-34.5
12 34-26.5-36

As her measurements were 37-23-36 as her bust and hip are much bigger than a 6 I really don't see how you can think she is that size. I suppose it's down to your interpretation. I have the same issue myself to an extent where if I get a dress to fit my hips it's usually at least one size too large round my waist and one size to small round my chest.

EDIT: Luckily I can now shop at Bravissimo which takes this into account and I can finally get fitted shirts that I can get my chest into.

See I wear an 8 and my waist size isn't that small and I have a large bust, my hips are smaller than a 6 though my those measurements. That's the point though, the sizes they say really aren't what they actually are. Also I can't believe her back size was a 36 as she looks tiny, her hips were large but her waist and back size look small, large bust but small back.

I have the same problem with tops or tight dresses in that if they fit my hips and waist then they don't go anywhere near my bust so I have to buy stretchy clothes so they fit my bust but don't make me look like a bin bag.

 

[JodieO]

Yes she 'looks' but it doesn't mean she was. It is all down to your interpretation i very doubt that she was a size 6, 10-12 is more realistic for someone known for her curves and fuller figure.

If i buy trousers to fit my hips there is NO WAY in a squillion years they will ever fit me in the waist due to having 10" difference clothes just aren't made to fit that kind of thing. Buying dresses i have to buy ones which fit loosely around my hips or they are just way too big everywhere else. GAP have started doing womens measurements in inches like mens sizes, you would be amazed how many women have no idea what size they really are other than their dress size.

Yes but the sizes in her days were smaller than they are now, hence the difference. You can see from some photos that she was tiny even with hips. I cannot believe she was a 12 by today's sizes or even a 10 really as her waist was tiny and the clothes would have been hanging off of her. It's a misconception that has been perpetuated, she did have a good figure but that's still entirely possible if she was a 6/8 by today's standards. Maybe they are on about waist size as that's quite important with clothing. She certainly didn't look large, had boobs and hips but small still.

I suppose they've never needed to know before though. Do many women measure themselves if they're not dieting or buying clothes by inches?

 

[JodieO]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1385806

 

[JodieO]

So we just ignore her official mesaurements (inches haven't changed in the last 60 years) then and go on what instead? The article also states that some people think she would be fat by todays standards and plus size. Which is something I always thought was silly as clearly she wasn't.

By the dress that the woman in the picture tried on? It clearly doesn't fit her and she is a size 12. Quoted measurements for her can be made up the actual dress she wore isn't.

"The myth that Marilyn would be considered near plus-size today has become a battle cry in the culture wars over female body image," Seigel says. "The truism that the world's sexiest woman would be fat by today's glamour standards has been repeated unattributed in hundreds of articles and books.

"Nice try, but image activists will have to come up with other arguments," Seigel says. "Marilyn Monroe was not even close to a size 12."

 

[JodieO]

I can see that you aren't willing to be open minded about this so i can't see how arguing against you will so any good.

No very few women measure themselves unless dieting. Which i believe has added to the vanity sizing fad. They see a grouped number size 12 for example not their specific size so it has been easy for manufacturers to slowly increase the measurements of their clothing and still call it size X.

Not true at all, I am open minded but I have eyes!

Yes and the article is American. An American size 12 is a British 14. I don't think she is a 14 either.

Far as I can see it's at least 2 or 3 dress sizes smaller, huge difference in the inches on that dress.

Anyway agree to disagree, she looks smaller to me but as you say size is subjective to everyone and so maybe we're both wrong.

 

[JodieO]

Size 12 uk?

 

[JodieO]

There is one thing I am sure all women can agree on though. It doesn't matter what size you are, it's different in whichever shop you go into and fits vary wildly! It would be lovely to get some standardisation. Though as already said it's difficult to cater for everyone (more for women than for men as there seems to be a lot more variation in shape).

Agree on that, it's very annoying.

 

[JodieO]

No i'd say 8/10 she looks very similar in shape to my younger sister, who is slim but is a size 8/10 but looks thinner because she has a large bust.

I look similar to that (but not as good obviously) and have a larger bust still as I'm breastfeeding but do wear a size 8, sometimes 10 in tops. If she's a size 12/16 then so am I! I'm not trying to be arguementative at all honestly.

It doesn't really matter what size she was but the sizes have definitely changed since then. I'd love to be able to buy something without trying it on.

 

[JodieO]

In that pic no it doesn't look like it. But then I could easily find pics to illustrate my point. Judging by eye isn't exactly scientific either, her weight also varied over the years. So rather than that I used official studio figures. So for the MM debate I think i shall leave it there After all the main point of the thread was vanity sizing.

Agree with that and reminded me of another point, her weight did vary a lot so maybe some of the more well known pics were taken at a point when she weighed more? I guess she was just like the rest of us with the weight flucuations.