Didnt pay enough attention to the actual information, because its too indepth for a topic I'm not really interested in, but it was a pretty neat experience. Very well presented.

Post more stuff like this that you find please id love to see something I'm interested in

Sort of a naive take but it seems like you could mandate objective measurements on clothing like we have ingredient lists on food.

I'm not gonna complain about most men's clothes being cut for fat people anymore.

Thanks for sharing! I cross posted it to !dataisbeautiful@mander.xyz

Even in men's sizes where the waist is explicitly stated in a numerical measurement. And the manufacturers still manage to fuck it up!

I may be an outlier cause I'm 6'6 ~265 lbs., but I certain brands I know 34 inch waist will be fine, but most others are a complete crap shoot.

I'm still gonna complain. Ive got a L that fits perfectly and a XXXL that makes me look like Harold from Hey Arnold. Lucky for me my gender doesnt store such personal worth in size like that.

Women's clothing is a nightmare and every time I must interact with it makes me want to throw all clothing into the ocean and demand sackcloth for coverings.

As a father with a tween daughter, I second this motion. "Fashion" will mean tying a cord around the waist.

it would be great. my partner works in fashion design and trying to learn more about plus size pattern making. bodies are not uniform and basically each body grows in different directions, so it's very challenging to make clothing patterns that fit everyone since they also need to be scaled differently depending on each person.

It seems like the sizes have stuck with a normal BMI assumption where that's not the case anymore and most people are overweight so can't find clothes that fit them well without going into plus-sized clothing (which is less fashionable of course).

Very interesting article. I sometimes have to buy clothes for my elderly mobility-impaired aunt. At first I thought I could just go buy a bunch of "Size (whatever)" but as this article says that doesn't work. So I took the pants that fit her best, measured it all over with a tape-measure, and went into the store. That STILL didn't work because some pants "sit higher/lower" or had elastic that changed the way it fit.

When I was a kid we didn't have a lot of money and clothes were more expensive. So various members of our extended family would make clothes for us (sewing or knitting). I now appreciate how awesome that was.

I dated a girl and she was like a size 1 or 0 or something and even had to shop in the childrens section because of her height.

I heard my sister say “Yeah I usually wear a double zero” and it was at that moment I realized there is absolutely no regulation of women’s clothing, only chaos.

I'm 5' 11" and 175lbs, I wore 34" pants for most of my adult life. Recently, the past few years, I need 33 or 32 inch pants or they're falling off my hips. Same with shirts, I've been a medium my entire life, finding myself buying smalls lately.

The size range of most adult women's clothes was once referred to as "misses" sizes, as in "young misses". So a size 12 (before vanity sizing existed) was actually intended to fit an average 12 year old and the size numbers referred to the approximate age of teen that could be usually be expected to wear it. There was no size 0 back then, misses clothing usually went from 12 up to 20, although the range sometimes started at 10. After that, a woman moved into "woman's" sizing and the next number up was 40.

"Vanity" sizing started to appear in about the mid 80s and every manufacturer had their own idea of what a size 12 was supposed to be. This is when I first noticed that off the rack sizes no longer matched up with sewing pattern sizes.

Here's an example of a sewing pattern size chart from the 1950s. All the pattern companies used standard sizing, with minor variations.

When that size system first started being used, size zero would have been for a newborn infant. Actually, size 0 didn't even exist then.

And I'm going to complain that since society is appallingly obese, now I, with an athletic body, can't find convenient clothes. Box stores like Costco don't even stock sizes under 38 in my region. That's fatso size and I need 32's. I'm 6 foot 2.

E: downvoting me doesnt make you not obese, nor does it undermine my statement.

Yep. When I heard that a friend wore a double zero my first thought was "so she's two dimensional?"

I know right? Even if they have a size that is close to you the cut makes it so either you have to pick something that is baggy at the waist, or something that is so tight at the shoulders you can't even raise your arms.

My mom gave me the awesome idea to keep a notebook of the sizes from each brand that fits me. I've been doing this my whole life and it has been a life saver.

I've noticed that sizes are bigger on men's clothing, and I'm of the opinion it's for the dopamine boost of fitting into a smaller size than you expect. If you normally wear a 36 inch waist and all of the sudden that's actually too large, and a 34 fits, that feels good.

Marketing is all about subtle psychological tricks like that. It's disgusting.

That’s because most companies cut the patterns out in bulk, so given how fabric wiggles you end up with an inch or two of variance across the group.

Maybe it is because men are bigger?

It's been like a decade since I've learned of this but I am still shocked that pockets are so rare for women pants. I'm probably being naive but wouldn't a company that made women's pants with pockets just blow up? I just think pockets are so insanely useful.

I just try it on.

The issue is that we're trying to put everyone on a linear scale, but the actual shapes of people have more dimensions.
This is done because clothes are produced in advance, to be presented for sale in stores. With more people ordering online, it could be solved by on demand production/tailoring.

This would also solve the issues with excessive production, which is a massive problem for the industry. From this year it's no longer legal for the largest manufacturers in EU to destroy unsold clothes.
It will result in clothes costing more, but perhaps it should. It's currently too cheap. The single use and discard fast fashion needs to go.

Good to know I wasn't being irrationally angry, but exactly as rationally angry as I should've been

Oh my god, what an anoying webdesign! (At least on the phone)!!!
Why does the website not flat out tell me what their key take-aways are.

You didn't read the article and directly went to blaming women for being fat and vain when it's always been about maximizing profits at the expense of women's comfort.

The same phenomenon exists in the bra industry, where women are binned into a narrow distribution of ill-fitting sizes. Bras are a medical necessity for many women and poorly fitted ones often contribute to back pain, sores, inflammation, aggravates HS, and more. Yet scummy companies like Victoria's secret have pushed as many customers into 36C as they can to cut manuf costs.

Its more a problem with women's cloths, but there are 2 factors in play. You make them bigger than the listed size and someone can suddenly squeeze into a smaller size. A 14 fitting into a 12 is a big dopamine hit, and so a powerful selling point.

Counter to that, reducing material usage can add up. 1/2 an inch off every pair of trousers adds up. For cheap clothes this is a noticeable saving.

Most men tend not to try clothes on in stores. This makes us dependent on the numbers. We react strongly to errors. This kept clothing makers fairly honest. That seems to be breaking down. They are trying the same tricks they use on women, and it's annoying as hell!

This is the reason I still visit stores, much as I am loath to leave the cocoon. Shout out to lovely store assistants, they make a massive difference

I buy from the store the first time and buy online for subsequent items.

The issue is that we’re trying to put everyone on a linear scale
A pants has a length and a circumference. Both can be measured in cm. How about putting both numbers on the size label and drop the random numbers they use now?
Same applies for other cloths, all of those have a few specific measuring points. Again perfectly measurable and expressable in cm.

Jeans are like that. Width and length.
They still doesn't fit everyone easily.

One thing i found interesting is that as much as the manufacturers of clothing shifted the clothing sizes, average waist sizes still increased more than the clothing sizes did. IMO this highlights that the problem isn't just their marketing but the food, diet, and overall health of the community impacts it as well. The medium size was supposed to reflect the median waist size, if waists are increasing, the measurements have to increase as well to maintain that status quo.

I have anecdotal evidence that similar trends sometimes happens to male clothing. I typically fit a medium pair of track pants perfectly. My parents bought me some track pants from costco, they got small and medium because they didn't know my size. The small pair fits as if it were a large. My theory is the average costco male is a middle aged dad type, by making their sizes ridiculously big they can go home a feel good about fitting the medium pair instead of the large they typically wear.

If you read the article its actually a bit of both clothing manufacturers and increasing waistlines. Clothing sizes increased about 2.5" while waist sizes increased by 4". Its an issue of the clothing manipulating sizes to sell more clothing and the effects of modern processed foods and diets coming together. Clothing gets harder to sell as the size increases so they bump up the sizes to try to keep up with increasing wasitlines without shifting their sale strategy status quo too much.

We're taller now.

Most of the excess in the pants was in the waist/thighs area. There wasn't much of a big difference in pant length between the pairs. Its also possible the sizes ran big and costco got a good deal on them, as a male, im just not used to such a wide swing in sizes.

Main problem is, when you are tall (1,92m to be exact) and Its almost impossible to find anything that fits.

Last time I had to buy pants I visited like 6 different stores in the next (quite big) city and I could not find a single pair of pants that was ling enough and did not cost 100€ per pair. I exclusively looked in the men's section, since there is no chance I Am ever going to find something in the women's section. After a frustrating day I just ended up ordering online.

Another solution (under the assumption that they are consistent internally and across product lines)

Or since there's nowhere to try on clothes before you buy them in a costco, middle-aged dad bods would be disappointed that the Costco clothes they bought are too big for them. Then they'll have to go back and make an exchange or return. All that trouble might make them forget how good they might have felt for a fraction of a second when size large was too big for them.

I got news for you, most men wouldn't use the dressing room anyway. They'll hold those pants against the ones they are wearing and decide from there.

I’ve found the opposite. I have older pairs of jeans that are a smaller waist size that still fit and newer jeans that don’t. Shirts, too. I’ve been “L” for decades, now it’s “XL” or the sleeves and shirt are too short.

IMO manufacturers used to pre-wash/pre-shrink their fabrics more regularly. Now they don’t. They can make more clothing by the yard with non-shrunk fabric. So as soon as that ”L” shirt hits dryer it shrinks. The XL shrinks to L. I verified this by placing two shirts, pre- and post-wash, and the size difference was obvious. Maybe some “vanity” sizing is going on, too, or just being cheap. I haven’t gotten taller, but the L size is too short now.

Oh trust me I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than a fat blob.

I bring a tape measure and measure width and inseam.

That's fair. Especially fast fashion places like H&M. I bought a shirt I really liked there and after the first wash it was exposing my midriff. I do miss the pre washed and pre shrunk era. There's a chance I may have just gotten skinnier as I aged, but I don't objectively have a 32" waist. It measures about 33.75". So I guess the main problem is lack of a standard. [Insert relevant XKCD meme for more standards]

Ironically I bought some Old Navy clothes literally 20+ years ago, size “L”. Old Navy is definitely fast fashion. Just basic T-shirts and a couple pairs of shorts. They see semi-regular wear, still fit and are in good shape, good material, sized correctly. That wouldn’t happen with anything I could buy there today.

There are no sizes, only Zuul

Yeah, you've got those of us with a big ass, wide hips, and small waist, and people with the inverse.