Most of the time I don't need to try stuff on though, because I'm pretty confident in what size I need from each store I shop at. That irks me about clothing. Can't they just all pick a consistent size? Why must I buy an extra small shirt at Old Navy and a freaking large at Aeropostale? Grr.
That's an interesting point.
Perhaps you've noticed that men's pants are sized by waist circumference, and leg length.
Women's sizes are not consistent; for instance, one brand of size four jeans might have a 22-inch waist circumference, while another brand might have a 25-inch waist circumference; there is no rhyme or reason to it, really; and it leaves women
unable to simply grab "their size" off the rack, because there is no knowing one's size; it varies depending upon the clothing brand.
There are no standard, definitive, categorical, universal women's sizes; "size six" could mean anything.
Although it didn't used to be that way.
Women's clothing sizes used to be standard- rather recently, in fact. Like men's, women's clothing sizes used to bear some correlation to their actual body measurements.
What happened was this: back in the 1980s, designers, clothing manufacturers and clothing retailers got together and funded a lot of research about the shopping habits of consumers. What they discovered is that a lot of women will refuse buy clothing because of the size on the tag, even if it fits perfectly and is exactly what they are looking for, if the size happens to be a size they don't want to wear.
You following me?
If a woman doesn't want to
face the fact that she wears a size 10 because she thinks size 10 is a fat size, then she won't purchase jeans that say size 10 on the label even if they fit perfectly and are flattering.
That's what this research found, anyway.
So women's clothing manufacturers began to "downsize" the numbers (not the clothes themselves), so that
everyone could fit into a "skinny" size and feel good about themselves and spend lots of money.
What passes for a four at Old Navy these days would've been an eight or a ten, back in the days when women's clothing came in standard sizes.
So when you hear that shtick about how Marilyn Monroe was a size 14... don't believe it.
It's technically true, but that's only because a size 14 garment back in the 1950s would've been the approximate equivalent of a size 8 garment today.
Back then, many women sewed, and were able to either make their own clothing or at least make simple alterations on store-bought clothing; it was also not uncommon or terribly expensive or extravagant to have one's clothing custom-tailored. There was, simply put, far less societal emphasis placed on everyone being a standard, perfect "size". Yes, women still wanted to
look good and be thin, but they sought to achieve this goal by the use of "foundation garments" and by buying flattering clothing and then making whatever adjustments and alterations were necessary. They were not overly preoccupied with the
number on the inside tag, as long as the clothing fit and made them look good.
Nobody's self-esteem was riding, until recently, on the number on the label of their clothing.
It was understood that clothes were meant to be altered to fit one's body, not the other way around. Now people apparently feel they have to remake their bodies to fit into the clothes they want to wear, in the size they want to be.
Clothing manufacturers have simply obliged by making larger and larger clothing, in smaller and smaller "sizes".
If a woman with a 26-inch waist can fit into a size 5 at Old Navy, but has to wear a size 6 from the Gap, she might choose to shop at Old Navy simply because she prefers to think of herself as a size 5.
And that's the story on that.
But yeah; it is difficult and inconvenient to buy clothes off the rack because of these inconsistencies in sizing.
Guys have it much easier; there's no real reason for them to try on clothes. The sizes on men's clothing is standard. Waist size/ leg length. End of story.
Then again, women have only themselves to blame. If men were whining about how they weren't going to buy Levis anymore because they didn't want to have a 34-inch waist, then the Levis corporation would start calling a size 34 a '32' instead, so it could sell more jeans. Not to be outdone, Old Navy would begin calling
their 34-inch waist men's jeans a '30' or a '28', in order to give themselves an edge over the competition. And so on.
I've had women who appear to be of perfectly ordinary size boast to me, straight-faced, that they wear size zero jeans.
Size zero.
It reminds me of that Dr. Seuss story, "The Sneetches":
"Off again! On again! In again! Out again! Through the machines they raced round and about again, changing their stars every minute or two. They kept paying money. They kept running through. Until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who."
Who knows
what a size zero (or
any women's clothing size) means, today. :shrug:
It seems to be entirely subjective.
It means, I suppose, whatever one wants it to mean.
So take that! 