|
01-05-2007, 10:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
what size are you really???
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published January 4, 2007 Okay ladies, let's admit it. We get excited when we can wear a smaller size, especially when we have gained 10 pounds. The fashion industry gets a kick out of appealing to our wish to be thin - changing the size on the label without actually changing the size. We're on to them. But how far are designers going to take this vanity sizing? Banana Republic has a size "00." And designer Nicole Miller is introducing a "Subzero" size for women with 23 1/2-inch waists. Is that so women like Nicole Richie don't have to shop in the girls' department? Because last time we checked, the nation was getting fatter, not thinner. (Exception perhaps to Richie, reported to be 5 feet 1 and 85 pounds after her arrest for DUI last month.) Nada Manley, a fashion and beauty writer, says designers are padding our egos while secretly expanding our waistlines so we can fit in "smaller" sizes. Manley remembers the blond twins from the popular 1980s Sweet Valley High book series were a perfect size 6. Fast forward to 2006. Andy (Anne Hathaway) was told that a size 6 was unacceptable in the movie The Devil Wears Prada. "A size 6 is a wonderful, beautiful size," says Manley, author of Secrets of the Beauty Insiders and a columnist for the Daytona Beach News-Journal. "But it's not the size a writer would pick today if she wanted to describe someone who had an ideal figure." Are we thinner? Miller's spokeswoman told Newsweek the subzero is for the naturally petite woman. A Banana Republic spokeswoman has said women wanted a smaller size. Considering 0 is the new 6 among celebrities, that might just be the case. A size 0 is probably too big for some bone-thin actresses. "There are teeny people in the world," says Sasha Charnin Morrison, fashion director for US Weekly. "They have to do massive tailoring to get the waist to fit. Number two, the length of everything is way too long for a lot of women as well. I think it's come to a point where a lot of smaller women just can't simply find their size anywhere." But Becky Vieira, creative director for Chip & Pepper, a leading American brand of premium denim, says she hasn't found that women are demanding smaller sizes. After all, most women are a size 12 or larger. For Chip & Pepper, the hottest sizes are about equivalent to a 4 or 6. "We don't find women need something smaller than a 24 (waist)," she says. "It's still the standard 27s and 28s that sell out first. In Japan we offer a 23, but we haven't had that need anywhere else." Or are we so vain? Alexandra Eliot, an eating disorders specialist, says she remembers when there was no size 0. A small woman wore a size 2. (In fact, there was a debate in 1998 about whether Calista Flockhart was a size 2 or 0.) Now there is a tremendous vanity and competitiveness about wearing smaller sizes, she says. "Anorectics are ferociously competitive," says Eliot, who teaches in the school of social work at Simmons College. "That's how the whole thing down to zero got started. The big thing was to fit a zero, so the fashion industry was only too eager to accommodate these people's wishes." But designer Cesar Galindo, whose fashion is size 2 to 20, says some of this is consumer-driven. Women don't want to own up to the truth about their size, particularly older women who are spending thousands on high-end fashion. "When a woman is 50, and she's spending $5,000 on a dress, she doesn't want to know that she is a size 18," Galindo says. "She wants her designer to make her an 8." Galindo says vanity sizing generates sales. And designers know that. "A woman will buy a dress that doesn't fit her," he says. "A woman will buy it because she is going to get into it one way or another. I know customers that will come in and if it's a size they don't think they are they won't even take it off the rack." Is this dangerous? Most people aren't going to starve themselves to fit into a 00, Eliot says. (Remember, we are getting fatter.) But she worries about anorexics. There are Web sites where they talk about who is thinnest of them all, she says. "The people who are sick from eating disorders will try to fit into smaller and smaller sizes," she says. Madrid banned super bone-protruding models from its Fashion Week in September for that reason. There was concern that young girls were developing eating disorders because of the rail-thin images. Galindo, who sells mostly 8s, 10s and 12s, says he is concerned that women place too much emphasis on a size label. (How many men do you know who buy something that doesn't fit?) He is also bothered that designers play into their insecurities. He hasn't changed his sizing, but his 1967 mannequin, a size 10 back then, is now a size 2-4. "I think going below zero is going below the ground," he says. "I don't think it's right designers are trying to do that. In 2007, we are all going to be minus zero times 4. When does it end? It's kind of ridiculous." Vieira, though, says vanity sizing is not going to last much longer, because more women are shopping online. "It's such a pain when you buy something to send it back," she says. "It's really in the best interest of the companies to stay true to size and that's what we're doing."
__________________
LOVIN' LIFE!! 
|
|
01-05-2007, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Great read. Sad but true. I'm guilty......I've bought pants 2 sizes smaller just because I didnt want to wear a bigger size.
 even though i knew i couldnt fit into them at the time.... Why is it that clothes look better on you when you try it on at the stores as oppsed to at home what do they do to their mirrors? Any of you girls find that true?
|
|
01-05-2007, 01:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have the opposite happen.
I've bought pants bigger because I liked them, but they didn't have them in my size. So, you pay $90 for a pair of pants or $150 for a pair of jeans, then you have to pay more to have them taylored to fit you. Not Fun. I think that there are just small people in the world. People that are healthy and small. I'm healthy. I eat all day every day, and I work out hard....I'm just small...so no size 2 is going to fit me.
|
|
01-05-2007, 01:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
wtf?! size 0?! my ex was as thin as they come and she wore size 8...
I'm a 12...oh I'm so fat etc etc LOL
__________________
3 months off for investment banking internship followed by 3 months off because of various injuries from rugby (league) serious time cometh.
|
|
01-05-2007, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i would love to be a size 5-6. I dont know if i could ever though...
 just the shape of my body i dunno...my fuller thighs would not fit i dont think and not to mention my big booty....ahhhhhhhhhahhhahhaa
|
|
01-05-2007, 02:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'd be happy if they made pants for curvy AND short girls. Shopping in the kids section really isn't fun. I loved it when I was anorexic and could wear a kids' size 8, but now it is hard to find something that's age appropriate. I'm not longer a kids' size 8, but still shop in the kids' department.
__________________
~Sophie~ http://angel.catfangz.com/Arnold.html
|
|
01-05-2007, 04:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm a size 24
|
|
01-05-2007, 04:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
my gf is a size 0 or 2, but pants are always wayyyy too long, she's just a very small girl, 5'2"(more like 5'1 and 4/4") 105lb
Also, most small or XS tops don't fit her right on account of her... endowment, so she has a hard time fitting anything. apparently most women have the same size feet though, as her size is always sold out during the shoe sales.... (can you tell she drags me shopping?)
|
|
01-05-2007, 07:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
A 2 wouldn't fit me though. I do have to wear 0's, and I love the stores that sell 00 sizes. It pisses me off because there's just certain places that I can't shop because of the sizes, even though I like their clothes. Grrrr.
|
|
01-05-2007, 07:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 I mean ****, I don't know how small my girlfriend is but is is no 0 or 00 (Lifter girls heh ). Had to buy a S when I got her something for christmas though.
__________________
At some point you realize everyone has a 'best-by' date like milk. Even later you realize that most everyone has already passed theirs.
|
|
01-06-2007, 06:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think if I lost 100% bodyfat I'd still be like a 7 or something. Im like you sophie, my hips are just to much.
I think it's sorta funny how people get all caught up in what size they wear. I dont give a hoot what the tag says....as long as it looks hot. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity"....I think thats how it goes
__________________
LOVIN' LIFE!!
|
|
01-06-2007, 03:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The fascination with this "fact" about Marilyn Monroe's dress size is not its literal truthfulness per se, but the implication it carries: that our standards of feminine pulchritude have become so extreme that the woman who has been idolized as the world's premier sex symbol for half a century would be considered "chunky" or even "fat" by modern standards. (Conversely, some of today's celebrities seem to be fond of invoking the "fact" that Marilyn wore a size 16 dress as a means of asserting that they themselves are, if not thin, in better shape than the renowned Marilyn Monroe was.) Marilyn may (at times) have been a little heavier than today's ultra-svelte models, but the notion that she was "fat" (even by today's standards) is based on misinformation or misunderstanding.
The claim about Marilyn's dress size is difficult to prove or disprove, both because of a lack of information and because of the number of ambiguities it engenders: Like most women, Marilyn Monroe experienced weight fluctuations as she aged, became pregnant, and went through cycles of weight gain and dieting, and so she would not have worn any one dress size, but a range of different dress sizes. The standards for women's dress sizes have not remained constant over the years; they have changed as the size and shape of the average woman has changed. (Clothing manufacturers assume most women don't want to wear clothing of a size identified as "Large," for example, so they adjust their sizing so that the average-sized woman takes a "Medium." If the size of the average woman has increased a bit over the years, then the very same size that was a "Large" fifty years ago might be a "Medium" today. This is sort of what has happened to women's dress sizes since the 1940s: a woman who weighs more now than she did twenty years ago might actually be wearing a smaller dress size today.) A person's overall physical contours can't necessarily be determined from a piece of his clothing. A very tall and skinny man might have to buy pants with a waist size larger than he needed in order to get the correct length of inseam, for example, and therefore inferences about his weight based solely on the waist size of his pants would probably be inaccurate. Likewise, a woman whose bust, waist, or hip measurements were unusually large or small (such as a woman with an acclaimed "hourglass" figure) might have to buy a size of dress that was not reflective of her "overall" size. (Even examining the clothing Marilyn wore in her heyday wouldn't necessarily answer the question about her dress size, since her outfits were custom-made by studio dressmakers and therefore didn't bear size tags or hew to standard industry dimensions.) Reliable documentary evidence is tough to come by for this sort of thing. Doctors might record a patient's height and weight, but not her dress size or measurements; other citings of Ms. Monroe's size are difficult to take at face value, as their sources (e.g., studio publicity shops) are known more for exaggeration and puffery than accuracy. Additionally, weight and other size measurements are mere snapshots: a mature person's height is unlikely to change significantly, but the other numbers can vary quite a bit over time. So, what can we say with any certainty? We can at least establish a range of measurements for Marilyn Monroe based on the available sources: Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches Weight: 118-140 pounds Bust: 35-37 inches Waist: 22-23 inches Hips: 35-36 inches Bra size: 36D A woman of Marilyn's height, at the extreme of Marilyn's weight range (140 lbs), would probably wear a size 12 dress today (which is the same dress size listed for Marilyn in the book The Unabridged Marilyn). Perhaps at one time she did wear dresses that might have been considered size 16 (or even 18) back in the 1950s, but she almost certainly did not wear dresses equivalent to today's size 16. This is borne out by citings such as the following (which might also be a source of some confusion, as a British size 16 would be the equivalent of an American size 12):
|
|
01-06-2007, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
01-06-2007, 05:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
They have jeans called The Curvy Jeans. They come in size 0, and you can get them in short, regular, or long.
|
