The Rise of the 'In-Between' Model
November 11, 2014 2:14 PM Subscribe
In an Elle interview with "plus-size" model Myla Dalbesio - she's a size 10 - on her new Calven Klein campaign, the "rise of the 'in-between' model" is discussed.
"Booking an underwear campaign for such an iconic brand would be a coup for any model. But it’s especially notable for Dalbesio, who, at a size 10, is what the fashion industry would—still, surprisingly—call 'plus size.' ('In fact, not so long ago plus size models were around size 10-12, but that number has recently shrunk to an 8,' said Cosmopolitan earlier this year, while PLUS Model concurs that models 'between size 6 and size 14' are typically considered plus size.)"
"Booking an underwear campaign for such an iconic brand would be a coup for any model. But it’s especially notable for Dalbesio, who, at a size 10, is what the fashion industry would—still, surprisingly—call 'plus size.' ('In fact, not so long ago plus size models were around size 10-12, but that number has recently shrunk to an 8,' said Cosmopolitan earlier this year, while PLUS Model concurs that models 'between size 6 and size 14' are typically considered plus size.)"
There's a decent enough opinion piece from Refinery29's Gina Marinelli that's worth a glance-over, too.
posted by ourt at 2:19 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by ourt at 2:19 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
"New policy - we will discourage bulimia," the industry spokesperson continued, "Obviously anorexia is still mandatory."
posted by el io at 2:22 PM on November 11, 2014 [13 favorites]
posted by el io at 2:22 PM on November 11, 2014 [13 favorites]
The Perfectly Fit line was created to celebrate and cater to the needs of different women, and these images are intended to communicate that our new line is more inclusive and available in several silhouettes in an extensive range of sizes.
What's great is that their new extensive range of sizes ranges from (sometimes) a 32A to (sometimes) a 38DD, and that by showcasing them on a size 10 model, they are trumpeting being inclusive.
posted by jetlagaddict at 2:26 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
What's great is that their new extensive range of sizes ranges from (sometimes) a 32A to (sometimes) a 38DD, and that by showcasing them on a size 10 model, they are trumpeting being inclusive.
posted by jetlagaddict at 2:26 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Size 10? Size 10 is plus size, when if I recall correctly the average woman in the US is at least a size 14? Sheesh.
Oh well: at least 'skinny' is an improvement over 'starvation-level rack of bones'!
posted by easily confused at 2:30 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Oh well: at least 'skinny' is an improvement over 'starvation-level rack of bones'!
posted by easily confused at 2:30 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Dude, I can see that girl's ribs. Does not compute.
To be fair, she's sucking in her stomach pretty hard. Unless all their fat is stored on their stomach most women of normal weight will be able to do the same thing.
posted by Anonymous at 2:31 PM on November 11, 2014
To be fair, she's sucking in her stomach pretty hard. Unless all their fat is stored on their stomach most women of normal weight will be able to do the same thing.
posted by Anonymous at 2:31 PM on November 11, 2014
I literally can't see a difference between the photo of the model in the article and a regular lingerie model??
posted by fshgrl at 2:33 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 2:33 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sigh, I can remember my teens (late 60's-early 70's) when size 8 was considered the model perfect size. I was size 12, not perfect but very normal, usual size. My cousins that were size 2 and 4 were tiny little things, and there was some concern about their health being so small.
Once the perfect size is size 0, where do they go from there? Negative sizes?
posted by pbrim at 2:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Once the perfect size is size 0, where do they go from there? Negative sizes?
posted by pbrim at 2:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
And can we please not start calling thin people "unhealthy" in this thread. A lot of people feel resentment for thin women, we get it.
posted by fshgrl at 2:35 PM on November 11, 2014 [40 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 2:35 PM on November 11, 2014 [40 favorites]
One of my hobbies is sewing. In 1972(?), all the sewing pattern companies agreed to never modify the dimensions of their stated sizes. Therefore, when I want to sew something for myself, I have to remember that I'm a size 22. For ready-made clothing, I'm a 14. It's ridiculous.
posted by Melismata at 2:37 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 2:37 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
Can we please refrain from body shaming of any kind here? Healthy bodies look different from person to person.
posted by Hermione Granger at 2:38 PM on November 11, 2014 [21 favorites]
posted by Hermione Granger at 2:38 PM on November 11, 2014 [21 favorites]
pbrim: they're starting on 00 and 000 now. After that, I have no idea.
posted by Melismata at 2:40 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by Melismata at 2:40 PM on November 11, 2014
pbrim: they're starting on 00 and 000 now. After that, I have no idea.
They could also just adjust the body measurements down so that a size 0 is even smaller than it used to be; the opposite of vanity sizing I suppose.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 2:44 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
They could also just adjust the body measurements down so that a size 0 is even smaller than it used to be; the opposite of vanity sizing I suppose.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 2:44 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
People aren't shrinking, the sizes are getting bigger. I have 20 year old clothes that are 3 or 4 sizes smaller than clothing marked the same size today. The idea that people are thinner now than in the 80s and 90s is just ludicrous.
posted by fshgrl at 2:46 PM on November 11, 2014 [19 favorites]
posted by fshgrl at 2:46 PM on November 11, 2014 [19 favorites]
A lot of people feel resentment for thin women, we get it.
I'm not resentful of thin women, I'm resentful at the fashion industry which only shows women that are often unhealthily thin. There are real-world consequences for this as well, that are disturbing and not good for anyone.
On preview: Nevin - are you talking about the same woman in the article? Are you serious? Are you a nutritionist or doctor, or is you're 'may want to lose 15 pounds' just a joke? Also, please never utter those words to an actual human being in front of you, seriously, that's not cool.
posted by el io at 2:51 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'm not resentful of thin women, I'm resentful at the fashion industry which only shows women that are often unhealthily thin. There are real-world consequences for this as well, that are disturbing and not good for anyone.
On preview: Nevin - are you talking about the same woman in the article? Are you serious? Are you a nutritionist or doctor, or is you're 'may want to lose 15 pounds' just a joke? Also, please never utter those words to an actual human being in front of you, seriously, that's not cool.
posted by el io at 2:51 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
It would be great if there could be a wider range of body types represented in advertising, but at the same time the increase in size 8-10-12 models lately just seems to mean that plus-size clothing manufacturers keep advertising their clothing on smaller and smaller bodies. I can pick up a Lane Bryant catalog and half of the models are basically my size-- and depending on the degree of vanity sizing a store has, I'm usually between around a size 4 and a size 8. How clothing looks on a size 8 model is quite different from what it looks like on a size 18 model, yet anyone who is over a size 12 or so (Modcloth being a notable exception) has almost no one representing what clothing looks like on bodies like theirs.
That said, there are a lot of people calling for body diversity who I don't think are too aware of the realities of runway modeling. I haven't worked in the fashion industry (but I do watch Project Runway!) and I imagine it's a pretty big challenge to work with models of different sizes, particularly when you are casting days before the show (and after you've already created all the clothing). Might not be ideal but... I understand it.
posted by matcha action at 2:53 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
That said, there are a lot of people calling for body diversity who I don't think are too aware of the realities of runway modeling. I haven't worked in the fashion industry (but I do watch Project Runway!) and I imagine it's a pretty big challenge to work with models of different sizes, particularly when you are casting days before the show (and after you've already created all the clothing). Might not be ideal but... I understand it.
posted by matcha action at 2:53 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments deleted. Jumping into a thread about fashion and body size with a "that model should lose some weight" remark is not really engaging with the text, folks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 2:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 2:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
I wonder what standard they used to determine that she's a size 10. I have a bigger butt and a post-two-pregnancies tummy but other than that she sorta looks my size. At some point I was a size 8 but now that stores like Gap and such decided to not follow any reasonable sizing rules, it turns out that I'm buying XS there and maybe an S at a store such as Loft.
posted by CrazyLemonade at 2:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by CrazyLemonade at 2:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The best thing about Modcloth is that they invite customers to post pictures of themselves in the clothes, which allows you to see what they really look like on a wide variety of bodies. Some people also post their measurements, which is super helpful to me, because sizes aren't really all that informative. Pretty much by definition, no model is going to be my size, because I'm short, so seeing clothes on models is never going to help me visualize them on myself.
But anyway, she's really beautiful, and I'm glad she's found a niche for herself.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:57 PM on November 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
But anyway, she's really beautiful, and I'm glad she's found a niche for herself.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:57 PM on November 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
Oh man, I'm a sucker for a strong brow game.
posted by roger ackroyd at 3:01 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by roger ackroyd at 3:01 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
The #AerieReal campaign is nice, too. There's been a shift toward more "real" body sizes in advertising, but the issue is, it's still a "big deal" to most people both in and out of the industry. I always glower at the use of words like "real" to describe females with certain height/weight characteristics. As if those who don't fall within the "real" confines aren't actual living, breathing women?
posted by ourt at 3:03 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by ourt at 3:03 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think discussions like this should also come with some mandatory extra information, like that the model in question is 5'11", and therefore something like seven inches taller than the average woman in the US. Since sizes aren't scaled to height, this means that if she were 5'4", but proportionally identical, she would wear a much smaller size.
posted by Sequence at 3:04 PM on November 11, 2014 [16 favorites]
posted by Sequence at 3:04 PM on November 11, 2014 [16 favorites]
Oi! Fashion Industry! I have money. I need clothes.
If you have clothes that would fit me (you should, did I mention I have money? I'll give it to you) please show me what those clothes might look like on me, or someone vaguely like me.
At the very least indicate somehow that you are aware that I exist and have parts that I need to cover at work.
posted by misfish at 3:04 PM on November 11, 2014 [20 favorites]
If you have clothes that would fit me (you should, did I mention I have money? I'll give it to you) please show me what those clothes might look like on me, or someone vaguely like me.
At the very least indicate somehow that you are aware that I exist and have parts that I need to cover at work.
posted by misfish at 3:04 PM on November 11, 2014 [20 favorites]
"Size 10? Size 10 is plus size, when if I recall correctly the average woman in the US is at least a size 14? Sheesh."
Aside from the mountains of fucked up body image shit, there's another reason that models would generally be smaller than the average woman, in that by photographing someone you essentially turn them from 3-d to 2-d, and by doing that the person photographed always looks like they would be larger as part of that process. There are a lot of tricks dedicated to minimizing that through lighting, makeup, pchops, whatever. But to have someone who looks size 14 on a screen or in print, you want that person to actually be a bit smaller than 14.
The six million other ways it's fucked up have nothing to do with technical limitations.
posted by klangklangston at 3:10 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Aside from the mountains of fucked up body image shit, there's another reason that models would generally be smaller than the average woman, in that by photographing someone you essentially turn them from 3-d to 2-d, and by doing that the person photographed always looks like they would be larger as part of that process. There are a lot of tricks dedicated to minimizing that through lighting, makeup, pchops, whatever. But to have someone who looks size 14 on a screen or in print, you want that person to actually be a bit smaller than 14.
The six million other ways it's fucked up have nothing to do with technical limitations.
posted by klangklangston at 3:10 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
> Once the perfect size is size 0, where do they go from there? Negative sizes?
A few years ago I went into a clothing store with a friend of mine. I don't know what size she'd be, but she's a short, slim woman. I would go so far to describe her as "tiny." And most of the clothes in there were too small for her! I get stores and brands wanting to project a certain image, but you still have to sell things to people who can actually wear them. Who the hell was buying enough of those doll-sized clothes to keep the place in business? They were ostensibly for adults, but I had a hard time imagining anyone over the age of 12 fitting into them.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:15 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
A few years ago I went into a clothing store with a friend of mine. I don't know what size she'd be, but she's a short, slim woman. I would go so far to describe her as "tiny." And most of the clothes in there were too small for her! I get stores and brands wanting to project a certain image, but you still have to sell things to people who can actually wear them. Who the hell was buying enough of those doll-sized clothes to keep the place in business? They were ostensibly for adults, but I had a hard time imagining anyone over the age of 12 fitting into them.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:15 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
pbrim: "Once the perfect size is size 0, where do they go from there? Negative sizes?"
Zombie sizes. Z-2, Z-4, etc.
No, but really, she looks great. I love that she has strong arms and a bit more boob than most underwear models. (I like the aerie ads too. So many freckles!)
And yeah, brand-awareness advertising is great and all, but at some point your clothing ads have to actually communicate whether or not I would like to wear your clothes. "Generic model" does very little to help me figure that out, and the look has become so standardized it's easy to flip past those ads. Ads with women who have freckles, or a bit of frizz, or rounder thighs stand out, and make me go, "Oh, she's so pretty!" which gets me to look at the clothes. Modcloth-style customer selfies are definitely the next step (at least for online sales). Brands that show a wider range of model body-types all looking fabulous in their clothes are wise -- and, again, I get brand-awareness (and I get exclusivity/aspirational brands), but at this point it's not like mass-market brands are having to pay for precious magazine space or mailed circulars for ALL their advertising; they could certainly stick with the brand-awareness lifestyle fashiony models for the print pieces, but show MORE BODIES on their websites with their LIMITLESS PIXELS, so that the rest of us can tell if we like the clothes or not for our bodies! (And again, I get why some brands don't want to do that, but, come on, if you're a mid-market mall brand, show us some size 14s, please. Show us some short 2s! Show us some hippy 6s!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:35 PM on November 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
Zombie sizes. Z-2, Z-4, etc.
No, but really, she looks great. I love that she has strong arms and a bit more boob than most underwear models. (I like the aerie ads too. So many freckles!)
And yeah, brand-awareness advertising is great and all, but at some point your clothing ads have to actually communicate whether or not I would like to wear your clothes. "Generic model" does very little to help me figure that out, and the look has become so standardized it's easy to flip past those ads. Ads with women who have freckles, or a bit of frizz, or rounder thighs stand out, and make me go, "Oh, she's so pretty!" which gets me to look at the clothes. Modcloth-style customer selfies are definitely the next step (at least for online sales). Brands that show a wider range of model body-types all looking fabulous in their clothes are wise -- and, again, I get brand-awareness (and I get exclusivity/aspirational brands), but at this point it's not like mass-market brands are having to pay for precious magazine space or mailed circulars for ALL their advertising; they could certainly stick with the brand-awareness lifestyle fashiony models for the print pieces, but show MORE BODIES on their websites with their LIMITLESS PIXELS, so that the rest of us can tell if we like the clothes or not for our bodies! (And again, I get why some brands don't want to do that, but, come on, if you're a mid-market mall brand, show us some size 14s, please. Show us some short 2s! Show us some hippy 6s!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:35 PM on November 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
Heh. Every time I go to UNIQLO I'm struck by how the models in the photos seem so unhappy that the idea seems to be to subtly force you to look at their clothes just to avoid seeing their sour expressions.
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:42 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:42 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
they're starting on 00 and 000 now
That sounds more like shotgun shells than clothing sizes.
And again, I get why some brands don't want to do that, but, come on, if you're a mid-market mall brand, show us some size 14s, please. Show us some short 2s! Show us some hippy 6s!
This, a million times over. Having all the runway models be the same size maybe makes sense since those are sometimes one-offs and hand-made, but there's no reason to have catalog models (and even more so online) be all uniform in size, color, and shape. It's just not very informative and doesn't seem to me (though I'm sure the science of advertising would disagree) to be an effective way to reach the majority of customers who aren't going to be that one shape and size.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:44 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
That sounds more like shotgun shells than clothing sizes.
And again, I get why some brands don't want to do that, but, come on, if you're a mid-market mall brand, show us some size 14s, please. Show us some short 2s! Show us some hippy 6s!
This, a million times over. Having all the runway models be the same size maybe makes sense since those are sometimes one-offs and hand-made, but there's no reason to have catalog models (and even more so online) be all uniform in size, color, and shape. It's just not very informative and doesn't seem to me (though I'm sure the science of advertising would disagree) to be an effective way to reach the majority of customers who aren't going to be that one shape and size.
posted by Dip Flash at 3:44 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yeah, the women-dominated talkshows were all over this story this morning. I'm surprised that Metafilter is behind them on this one, because usually I learn about stuff here before it shows up in general media.
Anyway, I think it is pretty important to point out this quote from the article:
To Dalbesio, who spent years abusing Adderall, crash dieting, and flirting with bulimia in an attempt to whittle herself to “straight size,” it represents progress. “It’s not like [Calvin Klein] released this campaign and were like ‘Whoa, look, there’s this plus size girl in our campaign.’ They released me in this campaign with everyone else; there’s no distinction. It’s not a separate section for plus size girls,” she says.
So, no, Calvin Klein did not call her "plus size", Elle magazine did. And though I think it is ridiculous that CK's fashion campaign is being touted as inclusive of all different body types when what they really mean is, "Women up to a perfectly fit size ten," it s at least a step in the right direction.
If they could next work on making pants long enough to fit their own models, I would really appreciate that. When you're 5'9", like I am, the average lengths don't cut it (because, as Sequence noted, the average woman in the U.S. Is 5'4" tall), and stores never carry the longer lengths in my size.
posted by misha at 3:47 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Anyway, I think it is pretty important to point out this quote from the article:
To Dalbesio, who spent years abusing Adderall, crash dieting, and flirting with bulimia in an attempt to whittle herself to “straight size,” it represents progress. “It’s not like [Calvin Klein] released this campaign and were like ‘Whoa, look, there’s this plus size girl in our campaign.’ They released me in this campaign with everyone else; there’s no distinction. It’s not a separate section for plus size girls,” she says.
So, no, Calvin Klein did not call her "plus size", Elle magazine did. And though I think it is ridiculous that CK's fashion campaign is being touted as inclusive of all different body types when what they really mean is, "Women up to a perfectly fit size ten," it s at least a step in the right direction.
If they could next work on making pants long enough to fit their own models, I would really appreciate that. When you're 5'9", like I am, the average lengths don't cut it (because, as Sequence noted, the average woman in the U.S. Is 5'4" tall), and stores never carry the longer lengths in my size.
posted by misha at 3:47 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't get what they were aiming for with the facial expressions. I mean, I do, they probably wanted "sexy", but what they ended up with is "aroused dead person".
I prefer the drunken expression of J Crew ads. Sure, they're not really happy drunks, but at leave they're not dead and horny.
posted by Dynex at 3:59 PM on November 11, 2014
I prefer the drunken expression of J Crew ads. Sure, they're not really happy drunks, but at leave they're not dead and horny.
posted by Dynex at 3:59 PM on November 11, 2014
So, no, Calvin Klein did not call her "plus size", Elle magazine did.
I think you misread that: size 10 is considered plus size by basically the entire modeling and fashion industry, but her ad wasn't released separately from those featuring other models and Calvin Klein didn't promote it specially, they treated it (and her) like all of their other ad materials and models.
posted by jetlagaddict at 4:02 PM on November 11, 2014
I think you misread that: size 10 is considered plus size by basically the entire modeling and fashion industry, but her ad wasn't released separately from those featuring other models and Calvin Klein didn't promote it specially, they treated it (and her) like all of their other ad materials and models.
posted by jetlagaddict at 4:02 PM on November 11, 2014
> I think discussions like this should also come with some mandatory extra information, like that the model in question is 5'11", and therefore something like seven inches taller than the average woman in the US
That's probably about right. I'm 5' 10" and wear size 10 clothes, and I think I have a body kinda like hers (but not as modely, and with some of my weight there instead of there). I have a much shorter friend who also wears size 10 clothes, and her body shape is very unlike mine (and the model's).
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:04 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's probably about right. I'm 5' 10" and wear size 10 clothes, and I think I have a body kinda like hers (but not as modely, and with some of my weight there instead of there). I have a much shorter friend who also wears size 10 clothes, and her body shape is very unlike mine (and the model's).
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:04 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
> they're starting on 00 and 000 now
That sounds more like shotgun shells than clothing sizes.
One of my old roommates tried doing standup once and this was one of her exact jokes, and if memory serves it got one of the biggest laughs.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:05 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
That sounds more like shotgun shells than clothing sizes.
One of my old roommates tried doing standup once and this was one of her exact jokes, and if memory serves it got one of the biggest laughs.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:05 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Where does the "average U.S. woman is size 14" statistic come from? The "average man" has a 40 inch waist too. But what's the distribution? A guy with a 32 inch waist and a guy with a 48 inch waist have an average waist size of 40, but in a world of mostly 32's and 48's nobody could wear a 40-inch pair of pants. I googled some and couldn't find any actual statistics.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 4:05 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by mrbigmuscles at 4:05 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
She looks really beautiful and healthy, but it's strange to see her described as plus-sized. I remember Sophie Dahl being lauded as a plus size model years ago and it felt then that fashion might be on the brink of embracing curves (she would have been around a US 12 I guess - she's much smaller now but stunning whatever her size) but then the moment passed. Maybe we're heading back that way again. Women of varying sizes modelling a variety of clothes - why is this the cold fusion of the fashion world?
Personally, I'm just waiting for the day when this becomes "model-sized" once more and my body shape is finally represented.
posted by billiebee at 4:11 PM on November 11, 2014
Personally, I'm just waiting for the day when this becomes "model-sized" once more and my body shape is finally represented.
posted by billiebee at 4:11 PM on November 11, 2014
That sounds more like shotgun shells than clothing sizes.
I beg to differ, they're clearly Wire Guages.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 4:16 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I beg to differ, they're clearly Wire Guages.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 4:16 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Where does the "average U.S. woman is size 14" statistic come from?I think you have to take any "average size" statistics about women with a grain of salt. There's a lot of variation in sizing between different brands, and a lot of women wear different sizes on bottom and on top. I don't think there is a size that the average woman wears, because the average woman wears more than one size. The point is, I think, that plus size (in the clothes sense, not in the model sense) is treated as a specialty category in retail, when many, many women wear plus size clothes. Same with petites. The fashion industry treats a lot of women like outliers, when really they're totally typical.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:22 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
So from what I can tell, this "plus size" is not shape-based, it's proportion based. Her shape is relatively the same as the 0-sized women, she's still really skinny, but just four times bigger overall. The "plus size" apparently has nothing to do with degree of "fatness."
posted by E3 at 4:24 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by E3 at 4:24 PM on November 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
Is the plus size of the fashion industry actually the same size range as the plus size in retail stores?
I guess I'm asking because my sense has always been that the fashion industry treats men and women - but especially women - as human coat hangers, which is why they prize thin-ness. I always thought "plus size" was industry jargon for a bigger woman model, as compared to their standard size 0 or whatever, not that Isaac Mizrahi or whoever actually thought that a size 12 woman in the U.S. was uncommonly big.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 4:29 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I guess I'm asking because my sense has always been that the fashion industry treats men and women - but especially women - as human coat hangers, which is why they prize thin-ness. I always thought "plus size" was industry jargon for a bigger woman model, as compared to their standard size 0 or whatever, not that Isaac Mizrahi or whoever actually thought that a size 12 woman in the U.S. was uncommonly big.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 4:29 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'm another one who is approximately this model's size. I wear a US 8 or 10, or a medium. Except when I wear a 6 or a 12. Or a small or a large, or whatever the hell fits. Sizing is so inconsistent that I promise you, depending on the shop, the garment, the cut, etc., a size 10 is probably just the number this lady starts with when she's trying on clothes.
posted by skybluepink at 4:30 PM on November 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by skybluepink at 4:30 PM on November 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
The fashion-industrial complex: neg'ing women since time immemorial.
posted by basicchannel at 4:32 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by basicchannel at 4:32 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Sizing is so inconsistent that I promise you, depending on the shop, the garment, the cut, etc., a size 10 is probably just the number this lady starts with when she's trying on clothes.I think that the fashion industry might use standardized sizes, though, like sewing patterns do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:36 PM on November 11, 2014
" she's still really skinny, but just four times bigger overall."
Holy SHIT, she's over twenty feet tall? That's what I call a plus size!
posted by el io at 4:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
Holy SHIT, she's over twenty feet tall? That's what I call a plus size!
posted by el io at 4:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion of 'between size 6 and size 14' being anything other than average. Plus size? REALLY?
posted by MissySedai at 4:46 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by MissySedai at 4:46 PM on November 11, 2014
Sorry, jetlagadduct, I was skipping to the chase a bit in my comment.
This last weekend saw a lot of Twitter outrage about the "plus size model" comment, and originally that anger was misdirected at Calvin Klein. As I said, the Talk shows were all over this today, and they made the point I was highlighting from the article linked here, that Calvin Klein never called her a plus-sized model.
I was surprised that Metafilter wasn't up to speed on the whole ferfuffle, because normally I hear about this kind of thing here first.
posted by misha at 4:48 PM on November 11, 2014
This last weekend saw a lot of Twitter outrage about the "plus size model" comment, and originally that anger was misdirected at Calvin Klein. As I said, the Talk shows were all over this today, and they made the point I was highlighting from the article linked here, that Calvin Klein never called her a plus-sized model.
I was surprised that Metafilter wasn't up to speed on the whole ferfuffle, because normally I hear about this kind of thing here first.
posted by misha at 4:48 PM on November 11, 2014
The video at the bottom of the main link (part of StyleLikeU's "What's Underneath" project) is a great interview with Ms. Dalbesio. We need more people like her of all sizes and shapes!
posted by wemayfreeze at 5:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by wemayfreeze at 5:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
00- wood fence posts, 000-metal fence posts. The fashion industry should just use mannequins, rolled around by movie stars to show their wares.
posted by Oyéah at 5:14 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 5:14 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
How clothing looks on a size 8 model is quite different from what it looks like on a size 18 model, yet anyone who is over a size 12 or so (Modcloth being a notable exception) has almost no one representing what clothing looks like on bodies like theirs.
Eh, I'd size down even further, unless we're strictly talking about plus size clothing companies.
For most of my post-puberty life until the last couple years, I was a size 4-6. I felt pretty normal in my body and took for granted that the models pictured in clothing advertisements -- unless we're talking about haute couture -- vaguely approximated what I would look like in the clothes.
Now I'm right around the size of all these new "larger" models (about which more in a sec), and to be honest it's just ridiculous how little the average mainstream retail model resembles in any way what the clothes are going to look like on my body. To the point that clothes shopping brings out all the latent body dismorphia I've kept in check since high school. I finally feel what the vast majority of American women must feel when shopping, and frankly, it's crazy that we haven't all risen up in revolt.
But, yeah, about these New Larger Fashion Models. I'm a size 10 ish right now. I look way, way less skinny than the women in that Calvin Klein ad. I know she's sucking in, and it's the best of hundreds of shots they took, and she's made up (contouring!), and photoshop of course. I mean, the idea that she's a "plus size model" is fucking laughable, even coming from someone she's arguably meant to appeal to.
posted by Sara C. at 5:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Eh, I'd size down even further, unless we're strictly talking about plus size clothing companies.
For most of my post-puberty life until the last couple years, I was a size 4-6. I felt pretty normal in my body and took for granted that the models pictured in clothing advertisements -- unless we're talking about haute couture -- vaguely approximated what I would look like in the clothes.
Now I'm right around the size of all these new "larger" models (about which more in a sec), and to be honest it's just ridiculous how little the average mainstream retail model resembles in any way what the clothes are going to look like on my body. To the point that clothes shopping brings out all the latent body dismorphia I've kept in check since high school. I finally feel what the vast majority of American women must feel when shopping, and frankly, it's crazy that we haven't all risen up in revolt.
But, yeah, about these New Larger Fashion Models. I'm a size 10 ish right now. I look way, way less skinny than the women in that Calvin Klein ad. I know she's sucking in, and it's the best of hundreds of shots they took, and she's made up (contouring!), and photoshop of course. I mean, the idea that she's a "plus size model" is fucking laughable, even coming from someone she's arguably meant to appeal to.
posted by Sara C. at 5:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
all the sewing pattern companies agreed to never modify the dimensions of their stated sizes. Therefore, when I want to sew something for myself, I have to remember that I'm a size 22. '
I would love it if some website did a table outlining this, i.e, 'Hi, I'm a 22--a 12 at the Gap, a medium at Target, a 10 at J.Crew, a 14 at Loft etc'
Or even took it down to product specificity, boyfriend jeans, or whatever.
I'd be interested to know how I find out if I am a size 22. Or 24. Or 32. Or 18. I don't care -- I'd just like a canonical size.
I was reading old posts on AlreadyPretty this morning and she recommended cutting size tags out of clothing and buying xl underwear and I loved it, because honestly, subconsciously, I'd been buying medium underwear. Which is totally absurd, I'm middle aged, I've had a kid. Guys, I'm not a medium in underpants. When they write 'medium' they're not even talking about me. Jeez. So I really enjoyed the idea of well, if you don't like your size, cut the label out, cover it with permanent ink, whatever, but buy the size that you feel okay in, as a human.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 6:20 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
I would love it if some website did a table outlining this, i.e, 'Hi, I'm a 22--a 12 at the Gap, a medium at Target, a 10 at J.Crew, a 14 at Loft etc'
Or even took it down to product specificity, boyfriend jeans, or whatever.
I'd be interested to know how I find out if I am a size 22. Or 24. Or 32. Or 18. I don't care -- I'd just like a canonical size.
I was reading old posts on AlreadyPretty this morning and she recommended cutting size tags out of clothing and buying xl underwear and I loved it, because honestly, subconsciously, I'd been buying medium underwear. Which is totally absurd, I'm middle aged, I've had a kid. Guys, I'm not a medium in underpants. When they write 'medium' they're not even talking about me. Jeez. So I really enjoyed the idea of well, if you don't like your size, cut the label out, cover it with permanent ink, whatever, but buy the size that you feel okay in, as a human.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 6:20 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
American women's clothes sizes are meaningless, made-up gibberish numbers. The only time the size tag on a piece of women's ready-made clothing has any meaning or is helpful in the slightest is if you're comparing it to the exact same garment by the exact same manufacturer in a different size. And all it tells you then is "This garment is bigger/smaller in some way than that garment."
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:21 PM on November 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
I really like companies like Kiyonna that actually show what their clothes look like on a 2X, 3X, 4X etc. Modcloth too.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 6:28 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Hazelsmrf at 6:28 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Are boobs the reason a different set of size metrics are in effect for women than men?
posted by notreally at 6:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by notreally at 6:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Are boobs the reason a different set of size metrics are in effect for women than men?
They are A reason, but they are not The reason. They are merely one among many, many anatomical wonders. Also, I'm guessing, star signs, whether sage was burned on the drawing board, and eldritch horrors, because "thighs" alone do not explain why someone can be five different sizes (and both a petite and a regular) in the same department store.
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:38 PM on November 11, 2014 [17 favorites]
They are A reason, but they are not The reason. They are merely one among many, many anatomical wonders. Also, I'm guessing, star signs, whether sage was burned on the drawing board, and eldritch horrors, because "thighs" alone do not explain why someone can be five different sizes (and both a petite and a regular) in the same department store.
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:38 PM on November 11, 2014 [17 favorites]
Are boobs the reason a different set of size metrics are in effect for women than men?I don't think so. Boobs don't explain why women's pants come in a single size, like a 6 or an 8, while men's come with waist and inseam measurements. There are many problems in my life which would be solved if women's pants were sized like men's pants are.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:40 PM on November 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
There are many problems in my life which would be solved if women's pants were sized like men's pants are.
I'm a dude but, I've heard this many times before. If I didn't know any better, I'd say women's clothes were designed to cause these problems. Wiki has a table of size to measurement conversions for women's pants etc - so why don't they just use the measurements to begin with? HMMMM??? Although, I think I read an article somewhere that even "inch" sizes are changing in the US. So a "32 inch" pant for dudes is not actually 32 inches... but I'm too lazy to look it up now.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm a dude but, I've heard this many times before. If I didn't know any better, I'd say women's clothes were designed to cause these problems. Wiki has a table of size to measurement conversions for women's pants etc - so why don't they just use the measurements to begin with? HMMMM??? Although, I think I read an article somewhere that even "inch" sizes are changing in the US. So a "32 inch" pant for dudes is not actually 32 inches... but I'm too lazy to look it up now.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:45 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The worst is that a lot of companies are going to two-digit sizes for jeans that look at first glance like they might be waist sizes, except that they're not and I'm pretty sure they're not even meant to be.
For example I wear a size 29 in jeans from Madewell, I have a 30-inch waist IRL, and said jeans don't come anywhere near my waist but much more closely resemble my hip measurement (and I don't take a different size in high waisted vs. low waisted jeans). Which is most certainly not 29 inches!
posted by Sara C. at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
For example I wear a size 29 in jeans from Madewell, I have a 30-inch waist IRL, and said jeans don't come anywhere near my waist but much more closely resemble my hip measurement (and I don't take a different size in high waisted vs. low waisted jeans). Which is most certainly not 29 inches!
posted by Sara C. at 6:53 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have an unconfirmed suspicion that not only does a specific size differ from brand to brand or store to store but from supplier to supplier. So you can get the same product from the same place but the factory on the other side of the world that actually makes the stuff might be different. It's the only reason I've been able to come up with for why sizes can vary so much within the selection of the same brand.
And I'm a dude, so I'm guessing what is a minor annoyance for me makes clothing for women basically a crap shoot.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
And I'm a dude, so I'm guessing what is a minor annoyance for me makes clothing for women basically a crap shoot.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
This is not strictly related to either model sizes or clothing sizes, but since it might be helpful: carry a cheap measuring tape with you when you're out shopping. It's helpful both for determining what a "large" is for a given shirt and whether it will fit you (you'd need to know your own measurements first) and for figuring out what the effective top tube length is on a bicycle you're thinking of buying off Craigslist. (Bikes are nearly as bad as clothes for having crappy measurements.)
Also, cheap retractable measuring tapes are a common branded freebie thing. The one I usually carry is Comcast swag, so I guess I can't say they're entirely evil.
posted by asperity at 6:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also, cheap retractable measuring tapes are a common branded freebie thing. The one I usually carry is Comcast swag, so I guess I can't say they're entirely evil.
posted by asperity at 6:55 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
A Terrible Llama: "I would love it if some website did a table outlining this, i.e, 'Hi, I'm a 22--a 12 at the Gap, a medium at Target, a 10 at J.Crew, a 14 at Loft etc'"
Your wish, etc.
NYT: " Plenty of people have tried to address these arbitrary sizes. Advocating a labeling system called Fitlogic over the last few years, an entrepreneur, Cricket Lee, discovered just how difficult it is to change manufacturers’ approach to size. Her labeling system divides women’s bodies into three shapes, straight, hourglass or bottom-heavy, and a Fitlogic label carries both the standard size and the shape. "
Which is also, as I recall, what Lane Bryant discovered when she started doing ready-to-wear clothes for larger women in the 1920s: she found they came in "big hips," "big boobs," or "stout all over," and she needed 3 different cuts to fit a majority of customers.
I would also hypothesize that when ready-to-wear and standardized sizing came in, men wore shirts and pants (which are sized neck/arm, and waist/leg), while women largely wore dresses rather than separates, and we're still stuck in that sizing system.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:18 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Your wish, etc.
NYT: " Plenty of people have tried to address these arbitrary sizes. Advocating a labeling system called Fitlogic over the last few years, an entrepreneur, Cricket Lee, discovered just how difficult it is to change manufacturers’ approach to size. Her labeling system divides women’s bodies into three shapes, straight, hourglass or bottom-heavy, and a Fitlogic label carries both the standard size and the shape. "
Which is also, as I recall, what Lane Bryant discovered when she started doing ready-to-wear clothes for larger women in the 1920s: she found they came in "big hips," "big boobs," or "stout all over," and she needed 3 different cuts to fit a majority of customers.
I would also hypothesize that when ready-to-wear and standardized sizing came in, men wore shirts and pants (which are sized neck/arm, and waist/leg), while women largely wore dresses rather than separates, and we're still stuck in that sizing system.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:18 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Although, I think I read an article somewhere that even "inch" sizes are changing in the US. So a "32 inch" pant for dudes is not actually 32 inches... but I'm too lazy to look it up now.
Just anecdotally, this is certainly true for some manufacturers (my boyfriend is the type of person to actually measure clothing on the rack before trying it on). Moreover, in his measuring he has discovered that usually, on a rack of "32 inch" pants, there are neither ANY pants that measure 32 inches, nor any two pairs that are the same size at all, despite being labeled as such.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 7:23 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Just anecdotally, this is certainly true for some manufacturers (my boyfriend is the type of person to actually measure clothing on the rack before trying it on). Moreover, in his measuring he has discovered that usually, on a rack of "32 inch" pants, there are neither ANY pants that measure 32 inches, nor any two pairs that are the same size at all, despite being labeled as such.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 7:23 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think this is what Levi's, Old Navy, and the other mall stores have been trying to address with their different "fits". For instance at Levi's I take whatever size in a "Bold Curve" as opposed to "Boyfriend"* or whatever, Old Navy has Diva vs. Rockstar vs. whatever, etc.
But, of course, like the numbered sizes and the different inseam options, all of these ultimately mean nothing and can be recalibrated at any time, or dispensed with altogether.
*Not the same thing as "boyfriend jeans", because of course what we need in pants is MORE confusion.
posted by Sara C. at 7:25 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
But, of course, like the numbered sizes and the different inseam options, all of these ultimately mean nothing and can be recalibrated at any time, or dispensed with altogether.
*Not the same thing as "boyfriend jeans", because of course what we need in pants is MORE confusion.
posted by Sara C. at 7:25 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Frankly I find it amazing that we all manage to show up for work competently dressed, made up, hair smooth, boobs in the right places, shoes correct, every damn day, somehow. Even though they only sell in the stores bras for 20% of the population and clothes for 70% and basically no comfortable shoes to speak of over size 9 and of those, they're almost entirely unlabeled.
posted by bleep at 7:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [37 favorites]
posted by bleep at 7:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [37 favorites]
I buy a lot of Dockers for casual wear, as they generally fit well, and even then I can't be sure that a size 8 medium in one style will be the same as a size 8 medium in another. Recently, I tried on a pair that I couldn't even button--but, then again, I was wearing yet another pair this afternoon, exactly the same size and vintage, that are so loose I can take them off without bothering to unbutton and unzip them. What's a shopper to do?
posted by thomas j wise at 7:48 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by thomas j wise at 7:48 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
A few notes:
1) Vanity sizing isn't about vanity. Sizing certainly changes over time as a market segment changes, but it's because sizing isn't just (or even primarily) consumer-facing—it's an internal system for manufacturers first. Clothing companies plan around the size they'll sell the most of, the median size, designing and making pattern masters pattern masters for it, buying fabric and projecting production and logistics to be most efficient around it, because they'll produce and sell more of it. If the target demo changes so that the highest part of the bell curve is larger or smaller, all sizes shift around the new median.
2) So yes, you will be different sizes at different stores. Because Ann Taylor's median customer is different from Prada ready-to-wear's, and different again from Givenchy couture's. Or even Old Navy vs Gap vs Banana.
3) Clothing sold in sizes is a relatively new development anyway (clothing sold ready to wear at all is new, historically speaking). In the hundred or so years that ready-to-wear has been an actual thing, the shape of women's bodies has undergone several transformations based on underwear, nutrition, soy, whatever. It's only a hundred and fifty years since even sewing patterns came in sizes. There are actually some ISO standards for sizing , but interestingly not for day clothes.
4) Yes yes, HURF DURF SIZE 000 NON-EATERS, but yes of course people need and buy those sizes, and they are real people just like you who would also like to cover their nakedness. An interesting phenomenon is the rising importance of Asia for retailers; 000s make people in the US freak out but they're not really for the US market, mostly. Though those of us who are super short and small are very glad they exist and are available here.
5) I think this woman looks just great. Yeah, fashion has problems, advertising has problems, and she's still fit and proportional, just with a somewhat larger cross-back measurement than the typical underwear model. It's still nice to see someone who looks different at all.
posted by peachfuzz at 7:56 PM on November 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
1) Vanity sizing isn't about vanity. Sizing certainly changes over time as a market segment changes, but it's because sizing isn't just (or even primarily) consumer-facing—it's an internal system for manufacturers first. Clothing companies plan around the size they'll sell the most of, the median size, designing and making pattern masters pattern masters for it, buying fabric and projecting production and logistics to be most efficient around it, because they'll produce and sell more of it. If the target demo changes so that the highest part of the bell curve is larger or smaller, all sizes shift around the new median.
2) So yes, you will be different sizes at different stores. Because Ann Taylor's median customer is different from Prada ready-to-wear's, and different again from Givenchy couture's. Or even Old Navy vs Gap vs Banana.
3) Clothing sold in sizes is a relatively new development anyway (clothing sold ready to wear at all is new, historically speaking). In the hundred or so years that ready-to-wear has been an actual thing, the shape of women's bodies has undergone several transformations based on underwear, nutrition, soy, whatever. It's only a hundred and fifty years since even sewing patterns came in sizes. There are actually some ISO standards for sizing , but interestingly not for day clothes.
4) Yes yes, HURF DURF SIZE 000 NON-EATERS, but yes of course people need and buy those sizes, and they are real people just like you who would also like to cover their nakedness. An interesting phenomenon is the rising importance of Asia for retailers; 000s make people in the US freak out but they're not really for the US market, mostly. Though those of us who are super short and small are very glad they exist and are available here.
5) I think this woman looks just great. Yeah, fashion has problems, advertising has problems, and she's still fit and proportional, just with a somewhat larger cross-back measurement than the typical underwear model. It's still nice to see someone who looks different at all.
posted by peachfuzz at 7:56 PM on November 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
Off the rack clothing has been a thing since before women in trousers has been a thing, so really there's no excuse.
posted by Sara C. at 8:13 PM on November 11, 2014
posted by Sara C. at 8:13 PM on November 11, 2014
Isn't it interesting that we seem to increasingly fetishize skinniness at the same pace that we ourselves are getting larger?
It's hard to say which is the cause and what is the effect. Maybe we get larger and then start to want to see more ultra-skinny people on TV as an antidote to our own insecurities. Or maybe we see ultra-skinny people on TV, realize that is an unattainable goal, and give up on previously reasonable levels of fitness.
(I say "we" as a dude because the same forces affect men as well, though not as acutely.)
posted by miyabo at 8:49 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's hard to say which is the cause and what is the effect. Maybe we get larger and then start to want to see more ultra-skinny people on TV as an antidote to our own insecurities. Or maybe we see ultra-skinny people on TV, realize that is an unattainable goal, and give up on previously reasonable levels of fitness.
(I say "we" as a dude because the same forces affect men as well, though not as acutely.)
posted by miyabo at 8:49 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, not really claiming that there's an "excuse" or that there's anything to excuse, really. Sizing isn't standard because there's no reason for it to be standard aside from consumer convenience.
Mass-produced and standardized clothing produced on spec (not on commission like for army uniforms or the like), and the majority of a person's clothing being purchased ready-made rather than made one-off at home or by a dressmaker, is very much a modern thing. That's actually a fascinating link from NIST for anyone interested in the history of garment sizing in the US (and, like, a pretty amazing artifact of Ancient Internet)
posted by peachfuzz at 8:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Mass-produced and standardized clothing produced on spec (not on commission like for army uniforms or the like), and the majority of a person's clothing being purchased ready-made rather than made one-off at home or by a dressmaker, is very much a modern thing. That's actually a fascinating link from NIST for anyone interested in the history of garment sizing in the US (and, like, a pretty amazing artifact of Ancient Internet)
posted by peachfuzz at 8:54 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Or maybe we see ultra-skinny people on TV, realize that is an unattainable goal, and give up on previously reasonable levels of fitness.
Or maybe the endless self-hating cycle of dieting, fueled by images of ultra-skinny people on TV, slowly ratchets up people's weight as they lose weight and then regain it all back and more, because that just seems to be how most people's bodies respond to dieting.
posted by misfish at 9:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Or maybe the endless self-hating cycle of dieting, fueled by images of ultra-skinny people on TV, slowly ratchets up people's weight as they lose weight and then regain it all back and more, because that just seems to be how most people's bodies respond to dieting.
posted by misfish at 9:02 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Vanity sizing isn't about vanity
I think this falls apart when you consider men's sizing, such as vanity sizing for men's jeans. There's zero reason for it except marketing -- making the buyer feel good about themselves, any more than there is a reason for a company to shift women's sizing towards smaller numbers.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:26 PM on November 11, 2014
I think this falls apart when you consider men's sizing, such as vanity sizing for men's jeans. There's zero reason for it except marketing -- making the buyer feel good about themselves, any more than there is a reason for a company to shift women's sizing towards smaller numbers.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:26 PM on November 11, 2014
I'm a Euro size 34 (US size 6, I believe). And today I tried on some size 34 pants and they were at least one size too big. The crazy thing is that most stores (including that one) don't even sell size 32, so where the hell do I buy my pants now?! Vanity sizing is stupid dumb.
posted by Omnomnom at 5:31 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by Omnomnom at 5:31 AM on November 12, 2014
i wonder if the clothing companies are aware that showing plus sizes on not plus size models means they lose a lot of sales - most women don't trust what they see in the pictures if the model is too different from them (teenagers still buy, but not older women eg late 20s up, too many bad experiences) - and i recently saw a plus size blogger (16 or 18) wearing a dress she looked really hot in, i cruise that company's website all the time hadn't seen the dress, went looking for it there it was, looked terrible on the slim model wearing it - they're an ethical company, she wasn't skinny, it was just a dress that looked great with sizeable breasts and didn't matter about the stomach somehow, due to the cut, whereas the model was slim upstairs and downstairs so didn't flatter that particular dress as much as the chubby blogger. Net result, lost sales to chubby people of dress that flattered them due to slender model. I've worked in a dress shop, some cuts add curves / make you look like a big blancmange, some cuts skim and slim / make you look like a bag of bones, some cuts have random consequences, so there's no 'right size' model, but i think they lose sales from slavishly conforming to industry wisdom, should be cannier. NB i am almost the only fat woman i know who trusts their judgement of what something looks like on a model with a different body shape.
posted by maiamaia at 5:37 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by maiamaia at 5:37 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Re: measuring clothing. From doing it at work, i know: unless you measure it stretched flat but not taught on a hard flat surface with no parts dangling off, it never measures correctly. You can measure the same item five times and get five measurements.
Clothes are mostly cut by laser in stacks now, but different colours are cut separate, so size occaisionally varies between colours even if not between shops. Customer tip! So if you adore it but that colour doesn't fit, try another.
posted by maiamaia at 5:42 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Clothes are mostly cut by laser in stacks now, but different colours are cut separate, so size occaisionally varies between colours even if not between shops. Customer tip! So if you adore it but that colour doesn't fit, try another.
posted by maiamaia at 5:42 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Someone really does need to achieve my dream of making a Ravelry for store-bought clothes, where different people would post pictures of themselves in the same garment, and you could click on the garment's gallery and filter for people whose measurements were similar to yours. Because I'm well within standard sizes, but the clothes that flatter someone who is short with narrow shoulders, big boobs, and not much of a waist are very different from the clothes that flatter the typical model.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:43 AM on November 12, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:43 AM on November 12, 2014 [5 favorites]
There was a great article in the New Yorker recently about the plus-sized fashion industry. Fabulous photos!
posted by chaiminda at 6:01 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by chaiminda at 6:01 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Someone really does need to achieve my dream of making a Ravelry for store-bought clothes
I think everyone who uses Ravelry feels that there should be a Ravelry for *everything.*
posted by chaiminda at 6:02 AM on November 12, 2014 [10 favorites]
I think everyone who uses Ravelry feels that there should be a Ravelry for *everything.*
posted by chaiminda at 6:02 AM on November 12, 2014 [10 favorites]
I used to have the perfect pair of jeans. The material was well-aged and soft, it fit me perfectly and looked and felt as good as a fat and awkward person like me can ever get.
When they started to wear out too much and go threadbare, I discovered that particular style had been discontinued, and so I searched for a NOS pair on eBay. Same brand, same style, same color, same size (in theory). Didn't even come close to fitting the same -- as in, if I were trying them on in a store I wouldn't have bought them.
posted by Foosnark at 6:27 AM on November 12, 2014
When they started to wear out too much and go threadbare, I discovered that particular style had been discontinued, and so I searched for a NOS pair on eBay. Same brand, same style, same color, same size (in theory). Didn't even come close to fitting the same -- as in, if I were trying them on in a store I wouldn't have bought them.
posted by Foosnark at 6:27 AM on November 12, 2014
Don't forget- models are tall, and clothing sizes also go up when you are taller, not just wider. So a woman who is 5'11 wearing a size 10 will look quite slim, while a 5'0 woman in a size 10 would look a little different.
posted by bearette at 7:04 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by bearette at 7:04 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Someone really does need to achieve my dream of making a Ravelry for store-bought clothes, where different people would post pictures of themselves in the same garment, and you could click on the garment's gallery and filter for people whose measurements were similar to yours.
I think Modcloth does this pretty well, in the reviews people post their sizes and post pictures of themselves wearing the clothing. I find myself reading them all to find out if in a certain style of dress I should buy a medium or a large, or how roomy the chest area will be etc. I'm ordering from Canada so I don't want to have to mess with returns and so far I haven't had to because seeing real people wearing the clothing has been awesome.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 7:39 AM on November 12, 2014
I think Modcloth does this pretty well, in the reviews people post their sizes and post pictures of themselves wearing the clothing. I find myself reading them all to find out if in a certain style of dress I should buy a medium or a large, or how roomy the chest area will be etc. I'm ordering from Canada so I don't want to have to mess with returns and so far I haven't had to because seeing real people wearing the clothing has been awesome.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 7:39 AM on November 12, 2014
I tried on jeans last night and nearly burst into tears in the dressing room because even though all the pairs were the exact size as the pair I wore into the store, and had bought at that same store several years ago, they all were too small. And I was at LL Bean, fer chrissakes! When LL Bean resizes to fit only non-curvy women, you know you're screwed.
posted by JanetLand at 7:51 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by JanetLand at 7:51 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
OK, selling clothes is almost the exacting game nature plays with adaptations to ensure ssurvival. On my assumptions of gender in the comment thread: men's sizes are adapted to marketing strategies for individuals who don't like clothes shopping trying on and etc as much as women, and persons for whom others shop. This is the gender category of moms who shop for young men, and spouses who can then easily acquire a pair of pants for the sake of convenience. For the other main market moms shop with younger daughters and negotiate more, older teenage children shop with friends, and negotiate more, grown women are manipulated into trying more items by the mystery of sizing, the more product hits, the more chance the buyer will sell themselves on something. The ancient gatherer impulse is not lost on marketers, I am surprised this isn't already covered in this thread. The more people touch product, the more feelings of ownership set in, then People over buy, by their financial realities, but for the industry this I just right. There are no accidents in the marketing strategies, except for the foisting off of the boyish figure on women, as a feminine ideal.
posted by Oyéah at 8:34 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 8:34 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
And all it tells you then is "This garment is bigger/smaller in some way than that garment."
posted by The Underpants Monster
I see what you did there.
while men's come with waist and inseam measurements.
Please don't tell me that mens' pants are marketed towards the idea of "yes! Your big dick will fit in here!"
Clothing sold in sizes is a relatively new development anyway (clothing sold ready to wear at all is new, historically speaking).
This. All this agonizing didn't exist a hundred years ago. Let's go back to making all our own clothes. Don't have time? Have a neighborhood seamstress take all your measurements and make the garment from scratch. (I think there was a FPP recently about how you could custom-order jeans online by sending them your measurements.)
posted by Melismata at 9:16 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by The Underpants Monster
I see what you did there.
while men's come with waist and inseam measurements.
Please don't tell me that mens' pants are marketed towards the idea of "yes! Your big dick will fit in here!"
Clothing sold in sizes is a relatively new development anyway (clothing sold ready to wear at all is new, historically speaking).
This. All this agonizing didn't exist a hundred years ago. Let's go back to making all our own clothes. Don't have time? Have a neighborhood seamstress take all your measurements and make the garment from scratch. (I think there was a FPP recently about how you could custom-order jeans online by sending them your measurements.)
posted by Melismata at 9:16 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I was just about to type out an Ask about this very sizing issue.
Like Sara C., I'm in my early/mid 30s and have recently jumped from a size 4 pant to a size 8 - 10. I think. I can't really tell.
And I haven't really bought new jeans since, oh, 2007.
Since it's obviously time to get new jeans, I've been shopping. And man, I am so utterly confused by everything. I used to buy "size 4/26 in., skinny" wherever I shopped. There was some variance, but overall each pair fit. I cannot tell what size I am now.
And it's not just the sizing that's off. It's the labeling of various cuts. "Skinny" is more like "jeggings" now, "cigarette" is more like "skinny," "stovepipe" is more like "cigarette," and "boot cut" I'm not even sure about.
Oh! And add to that the proliferation of stretch denim, I'm even more confused. My new jeans start out the day at a 27 or 28 and end the day at about a 30 or 31.
I mean, I am fine with my newly acquired curves. I'll be fine as they get curvier. But that I can't figure out what looks good on said curves makes me feel... not so fine.
Yeah, I think I'll go type out that question now.
posted by functionequalsform at 9:55 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Like Sara C., I'm in my early/mid 30s and have recently jumped from a size 4 pant to a size 8 - 10. I think. I can't really tell.
And I haven't really bought new jeans since, oh, 2007.
Since it's obviously time to get new jeans, I've been shopping. And man, I am so utterly confused by everything. I used to buy "size 4/26 in., skinny" wherever I shopped. There was some variance, but overall each pair fit. I cannot tell what size I am now.
And it's not just the sizing that's off. It's the labeling of various cuts. "Skinny" is more like "jeggings" now, "cigarette" is more like "skinny," "stovepipe" is more like "cigarette," and "boot cut" I'm not even sure about.
Oh! And add to that the proliferation of stretch denim, I'm even more confused. My new jeans start out the day at a 27 or 28 and end the day at about a 30 or 31.
I mean, I am fine with my newly acquired curves. I'll be fine as they get curvier. But that I can't figure out what looks good on said curves makes me feel... not so fine.
Yeah, I think I'll go type out that question now.
posted by functionequalsform at 9:55 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
why is this the cold fusion of the fashion world?
My theory is that it has to do with the way clothing companies try to maximize revenue, when you get right down to it.
They are not making clothes for everyone, or even for the average person; they are chasing a specific demographic which they believe to be particularly profitable. Of course, when all the companies try to chase the same demographic, what you end up with is saturation in that part of the market and unmet demand elsewhere; it's a perverse outcome.
It seems analogous to the situation with video games, where you have a slew of games targeting a small-but-profitable market of "hardcore" players (who are apparently all believed to be male, 18-25, dumb as a bag of hammers, but with money to burn), while the rest of the market is standing there with cash in hand, waiting for something targeted to them. The clothing companies -- the big brand names with high street stores, anyway -- have their own hypothetical "hardcore" consumer in mind: apparently a young, svelte, urbanite woman with a lot of disposable income. In pursuing this hypothetical consumer they exclude others.
I'm not exactly why companies end up doing this; it probably starts off from an assumption that the hypothetical target demographic is wealthier or just spendier than the rest of the market, i.e. that in some way they represent the 'low-hanging fruit', but it quickly becomes self-defeating when everyone is chasing the same thing. What's strange is that it has taken companies so long to go after the unserved people outside that narrowly-defined target. You'd think it'd be self-correcting a lot more quickly than it actually appears to be, not just in clothing but in other areas as well.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:00 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
My theory is that it has to do with the way clothing companies try to maximize revenue, when you get right down to it.
They are not making clothes for everyone, or even for the average person; they are chasing a specific demographic which they believe to be particularly profitable. Of course, when all the companies try to chase the same demographic, what you end up with is saturation in that part of the market and unmet demand elsewhere; it's a perverse outcome.
It seems analogous to the situation with video games, where you have a slew of games targeting a small-but-profitable market of "hardcore" players (who are apparently all believed to be male, 18-25, dumb as a bag of hammers, but with money to burn), while the rest of the market is standing there with cash in hand, waiting for something targeted to them. The clothing companies -- the big brand names with high street stores, anyway -- have their own hypothetical "hardcore" consumer in mind: apparently a young, svelte, urbanite woman with a lot of disposable income. In pursuing this hypothetical consumer they exclude others.
I'm not exactly why companies end up doing this; it probably starts off from an assumption that the hypothetical target demographic is wealthier or just spendier than the rest of the market, i.e. that in some way they represent the 'low-hanging fruit', but it quickly becomes self-defeating when everyone is chasing the same thing. What's strange is that it has taken companies so long to go after the unserved people outside that narrowly-defined target. You'd think it'd be self-correcting a lot more quickly than it actually appears to be, not just in clothing but in other areas as well.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:00 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
apparently a young, svelte, urbanite woman with a lot of disposable income.
Yes! And this even basically describes me and I still find it impossible to find normal clothes to wear. I just want straight-leg jeans that don't cut off circulation to my ankles AND are not bell-bottoms. Which is crazy-talk apparently.
posted by bleep at 10:08 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes! And this even basically describes me and I still find it impossible to find normal clothes to wear. I just want straight-leg jeans that don't cut off circulation to my ankles AND are not bell-bottoms. Which is crazy-talk apparently.
posted by bleep at 10:08 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
while men's come with waist and inseam measurements
FWIW, there's significant vanity sizing in mens' clothing as well. The mens-pants "jeans size" is not the actual circumference of your waist in inches, at least if you are buying typical jeans in a major US store. (If you wear "size 34" jeans, your actual waist may be more like 36-38, depending on the cut of the particular jeans.) It is a slower-moving change than womens' clothing, but it has still happened, presumably because it's flattering to still be the same size you've always been despite the tendency of last year's jeans to experience 'closet shrinkage'.
Unless there is a consumer backlash, which seems unlikely, mens clothing will eventually arrive at much the same situation women have had for years, which is an arbitrary sizing scheme that varies both over time and between brands.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:23 AM on November 12, 2014
FWIW, there's significant vanity sizing in mens' clothing as well. The mens-pants "jeans size" is not the actual circumference of your waist in inches, at least if you are buying typical jeans in a major US store. (If you wear "size 34" jeans, your actual waist may be more like 36-38, depending on the cut of the particular jeans.) It is a slower-moving change than womens' clothing, but it has still happened, presumably because it's flattering to still be the same size you've always been despite the tendency of last year's jeans to experience 'closet shrinkage'.
Unless there is a consumer backlash, which seems unlikely, mens clothing will eventually arrive at much the same situation women have had for years, which is an arbitrary sizing scheme that varies both over time and between brands.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:23 AM on November 12, 2014
But the thing is, I am a young, (relatively?) svelte urbanite woman. I don't have a ton of disposable income, but most of the stores I want to shop in are financially accessible on some level (even if it's a splurge or I shop the sales).
I am a lot of these clothing companies' target demo. My measurements fit squarely within the sizes they offer. And yet I'm ready to cede defeat and just wear some type of caftan.
(Also, psssst, bleep, I'm wearing a pair of straight leg jeans from Gap that are ACTUALLY straight in the leg and not skinny at all. In fact I initially tried them on assuming they were going to be the "skinny straight" thing that's happening lately, and was like "omg. these jeans. they... FIT ME. They are not actively painful to have on my body. I can move in them. I don't feel an urgent need to take them off and burn them around 4:30 in the afternoon. VICTORY IS MINE!" That said, are they stylish? No, of course not. Though if you peg them up a la boyfriend jeans, it kind of works.)
posted by Sara C. at 10:38 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I am a lot of these clothing companies' target demo. My measurements fit squarely within the sizes they offer. And yet I'm ready to cede defeat and just wear some type of caftan.
(Also, psssst, bleep, I'm wearing a pair of straight leg jeans from Gap that are ACTUALLY straight in the leg and not skinny at all. In fact I initially tried them on assuming they were going to be the "skinny straight" thing that's happening lately, and was like "omg. these jeans. they... FIT ME. They are not actively painful to have on my body. I can move in them. I don't feel an urgent need to take them off and burn them around 4:30 in the afternoon. VICTORY IS MINE!" That said, are they stylish? No, of course not. Though if you peg them up a la boyfriend jeans, it kind of works.)
posted by Sara C. at 10:38 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
(Also psst: I posted that Ask, if anybody wants to share their favorite pants. Heh.)
posted by functionequalsform at 10:43 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by functionequalsform at 10:43 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
About 15 years ago I took up a very strenuous sport for a few years. That, coupled with some not-great lifestyle choices, made me drop a ton of weight and for the first time in my adult life I dropped down to a size 8. Around that time I scheduled a routine visit with my GP of 10+ years, and I will never forget the look on her face when she walked into the exam room: her mouth dropped open and she turned white(er!) because I looked so sick. She insisted I gain back some weight.
So you see, on my 5"7', half-Polish/strong-like-ox frame, a size 10 is not only not plus size, it is on the thin side of normal. I personally prefer myself at a softer, fluffier size 12, but I'm currently a size 14 and this 50-year old body is fighting me hard to hold on to this extra size. The irony is that on me, 14 is actually plus-size, but in the stores it's still part of the straight sizes and the plus-sizes are too big but there are plenty of women who are are a thin, healthy 14/16 but have to shop for plus sizes. Frankly, one big reason I love maxi skirts is that the elastic waist makes the sizing much more forgiving.
Really the whole notion that one size that represents the absolute start of plus sizes is so stupid that if it didn't exist and someone tried to introduce it now the internet would tear it apart.
Sara C.: it's crazy that we haven't all risen up in revolt.
That should be our next meet-up.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:43 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
So you see, on my 5"7', half-Polish/strong-like-ox frame, a size 10 is not only not plus size, it is on the thin side of normal. I personally prefer myself at a softer, fluffier size 12, but I'm currently a size 14 and this 50-year old body is fighting me hard to hold on to this extra size. The irony is that on me, 14 is actually plus-size, but in the stores it's still part of the straight sizes and the plus-sizes are too big but there are plenty of women who are are a thin, healthy 14/16 but have to shop for plus sizes. Frankly, one big reason I love maxi skirts is that the elastic waist makes the sizing much more forgiving.
Really the whole notion that one size that represents the absolute start of plus sizes is so stupid that if it didn't exist and someone tried to introduce it now the internet would tear it apart.
Sara C.: it's crazy that we haven't all risen up in revolt.
That should be our next meet-up.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:43 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
Honestly, this thread actually makes me feel kind of bad for clothing manufacturers. Everybody's complaining about how arbitrary the sizes are, then adding that they themselves are of course, a size x but pear shaped or with large breasts or big boned or petite or....You can gather up a score of women of the same height and weight and find that outfits that look good on three of 'em look awful on the other 17, because: boobs. And hips. And butts. And thighs.
I'm a fatalist, at this point. Because believe me, I get the pain: I've had to buy a bunch of new clothes in the past year and jeans shopping, as I have discovered as medium-height, long-torsoed, short-waisted, short-legged, apparently assless person with thick thighs and cankles, is a torture ranking just below having my appendix rupture on my personal list of painful memories. And that was me buying new jeans because I had actually lost weight, and not the other way round. I bought a pair of Lees, in the end. At Sears. They weren't even the color I wanted.
posted by Diablevert at 11:06 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm a fatalist, at this point. Because believe me, I get the pain: I've had to buy a bunch of new clothes in the past year and jeans shopping, as I have discovered as medium-height, long-torsoed, short-waisted, short-legged, apparently assless person with thick thighs and cankles, is a torture ranking just below having my appendix rupture on my personal list of painful memories. And that was me buying new jeans because I had actually lost weight, and not the other way round. I bought a pair of Lees, in the end. At Sears. They weren't even the color I wanted.
posted by Diablevert at 11:06 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Honestly if sizing was standardized across brands, logical, and related in any way to quantifiable/knowable parameters, that would be fine with me. I don't need ALL clothes to look fabulous on me. I just need to not have to carry 40 pairs of jeans into the fitting room.
Also models in a range of sizes/shapes would be nice, so I wouldn't have to look at a picture of someone who weighs 50 lbs less than I do and extrapolate whether the garment in question would even fit onto my body.
posted by Sara C. at 11:15 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Also models in a range of sizes/shapes would be nice, so I wouldn't have to look at a picture of someone who weighs 50 lbs less than I do and extrapolate whether the garment in question would even fit onto my body.
posted by Sara C. at 11:15 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't know, I think there's a difference between "different women need different clothing to feel awesome, why can't you make all the things" and "I know it's hard to make clothing for everyone, but would it kill you to have a consistent size chart/make sizes lower than 6 and/or higher than 16/please photograph actual humans in your clothing," which is I think more of what this thread is looking for. Calvin Klein makes nice bras but they make very, very few in my size, even with the "inclusive" branding. Modcloth's photo reviews have convinced me away from a lot of dresses people have loved, which is a good thing, because I have more confidence in my choices.
anyway this is why I spent $200 over the last two days at eshakti, which blessedly will sell me dresses that fit perfectly and which have pockets
posted by jetlagaddict at 11:17 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
anyway this is why I spent $200 over the last two days at eshakti, which blessedly will sell me dresses that fit perfectly and which have pockets
posted by jetlagaddict at 11:17 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
would it kill you to have a consistent size chart
Even though Old Navy has different "shapes" they are not the same across different styles. The "Boyfriend" fits me well in their cotton pants but when I tried on a pair of Boyfriend jeans they barely, barely fit and the saleswomen confirmed that the jeans run smaller. (Or maybe it was the reverse. Whatever. It's FUBAR either way.)
posted by Room 641-A at 11:24 AM on November 12, 2014
Even though Old Navy has different "shapes" they are not the same across different styles. The "Boyfriend" fits me well in their cotton pants but when I tried on a pair of Boyfriend jeans they barely, barely fit and the saleswomen confirmed that the jeans run smaller. (Or maybe it was the reverse. Whatever. It's FUBAR either way.)
posted by Room 641-A at 11:24 AM on November 12, 2014
would it kill you to have a consistent size chart/make sizes lower than 6 and/or higher than 16/please photograph actual humans in your clothing,"
Well, to play the devil's advocate a bit, maybe....yeah? I've read a few interesting articles recently about the impact of "fast fashion" on the industry as a whole; the big department store and mall brands are finding themselves having to compete with the Zara and H&Ms and Century 21s of the world, and their quality has gone down and the speed at which they rotate stock has gone up. I've certainly seen it, as a consumer. So I do think it's probably quite difficult to maintain consistent sizing across your whole line when the work is being given out to a different low bidder every month, at different factories in different countries, and that when you're flipping your stock every six to eight weeks instead of every four months you probably don't get a chance for do-overs if a shipment comes in slightly off your guidelines, and that when H&M is selling the same style of sweater for $10 it's probably difficult to have the margin to eat the costs for quality's sake.
As for "actual humans" ....I wonder. The aspirational aspect of fashion is pretty inescapable, I think. I'm sure there's plenty of room for a wider range of representation. But not infinite room, perhaps. I mean, it's probably mostly pasty middle-aged balding executives buying Ferraris, but that's not who they put on the posters in the showroom, no? I tend to think they probably do sell more clothes when the models they used to display them are way hotter than the average person than they would if they used models that were well, more like the average person. All of this stuff is just peacock plumes in nylon form.
posted by Diablevert at 12:06 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well, to play the devil's advocate a bit, maybe....yeah? I've read a few interesting articles recently about the impact of "fast fashion" on the industry as a whole; the big department store and mall brands are finding themselves having to compete with the Zara and H&Ms and Century 21s of the world, and their quality has gone down and the speed at which they rotate stock has gone up. I've certainly seen it, as a consumer. So I do think it's probably quite difficult to maintain consistent sizing across your whole line when the work is being given out to a different low bidder every month, at different factories in different countries, and that when you're flipping your stock every six to eight weeks instead of every four months you probably don't get a chance for do-overs if a shipment comes in slightly off your guidelines, and that when H&M is selling the same style of sweater for $10 it's probably difficult to have the margin to eat the costs for quality's sake.
As for "actual humans" ....I wonder. The aspirational aspect of fashion is pretty inescapable, I think. I'm sure there's plenty of room for a wider range of representation. But not infinite room, perhaps. I mean, it's probably mostly pasty middle-aged balding executives buying Ferraris, but that's not who they put on the posters in the showroom, no? I tend to think they probably do sell more clothes when the models they used to display them are way hotter than the average person than they would if they used models that were well, more like the average person. All of this stuff is just peacock plumes in nylon form.
posted by Diablevert at 12:06 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
But the problem isn't just with lower end or mall brands, it's also in mid-tier brands like Kate Spade or in upscale jeans-- if a couple hundred dollars doesn't buy you a decent chance of getting the right size, why?
Modcloth's user-generated photographs are useful for them, because they often reinforce the branding, of course that wouldn't transfer across all brands. What I would love to see is models who are lower than a B cup, or shorter than 5'8, or at least to do it ASOS style and add in the model's height and size worn in the photograph. I'm not talking about the hotness factor of the models at all.
posted by jetlagaddict at 12:18 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Modcloth's user-generated photographs are useful for them, because they often reinforce the branding, of course that wouldn't transfer across all brands. What I would love to see is models who are lower than a B cup, or shorter than 5'8, or at least to do it ASOS style and add in the model's height and size worn in the photograph. I'm not talking about the hotness factor of the models at all.
posted by jetlagaddict at 12:18 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I tend to think they probably do sell more clothes when the models they used to display them are way hotter than the average person than they would if they used models that were well, more like the average person.
I don't see why hotter has to exclusively be a function of weight, though. EVERY PART of a print fashion model is 5000 times hotter than me, even her fucking teeth. I have plenty to aspire to even if she weighs a whopping 110 lbs at 5 feet tall.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:15 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't see why hotter has to exclusively be a function of weight, though. EVERY PART of a print fashion model is 5000 times hotter than me, even her fucking teeth. I have plenty to aspire to even if she weighs a whopping 110 lbs at 5 feet tall.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:15 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but it's not merely model's cheekbones which are aspirational; being tall is admired, being thin is admired, tend to bring you more status. Inasmuch as fashion is about selling desire, would we not expect that a model to be taller than average, thinner than average, as well as prettier than average? Your remark about models shorter than 5'8'' made me wonder what percentage of women are --- found this interesting chart from the census. I was struck, looking at it: the 25th to 75th percentiles --- e.g. most people, the average woman -- range from 5'2'' to 5'6, just about, in height, and from 140 lbs to 190lbs in weight. The top of the bell curve, the elite, top 10%? Over 5'8'' in height, under 120lbs in weight, or thereabouts. Pretty standard model dimensions. Thought that was interesting.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that you could build a successful brand on marketing to "real women" --- I bet there's a huge opportunity there for someone canny enough to exploit it. But I just think that sometimes we underestimate the power of the forces that make things the way they are. Like I said, I'm a bit of a fatalist on the subject.
posted by Diablevert at 1:28 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that you could build a successful brand on marketing to "real women" --- I bet there's a huge opportunity there for someone canny enough to exploit it. But I just think that sometimes we underestimate the power of the forces that make things the way they are. Like I said, I'm a bit of a fatalist on the subject.
posted by Diablevert at 1:28 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I tend to think they probably do sell more clothes when the models they used to display them are way hotter than the average person than they would if they used models that were well, more like the average person.
I see a beautiful model wearing something borderline-ugly/edgy and I think "Well she's beautiful so that ugly thing looks good on her but keep it away from me." If a more plain-jane model wearing the same thing I would think "Wow, she's pulling that off, and she looks like me, maybe I could pull it off too??"
I think there's a shit-ton more money to be made in fashion if fashion people would open their minds up and think about the fact that EVERYONE needs clothes and EVERYONE is willing to spend money on clothes.
posted by bleep at 1:55 PM on November 12, 2014
I see a beautiful model wearing something borderline-ugly/edgy and I think "Well she's beautiful so that ugly thing looks good on her but keep it away from me." If a more plain-jane model wearing the same thing I would think "Wow, she's pulling that off, and she looks like me, maybe I could pull it off too??"
I think there's a shit-ton more money to be made in fashion if fashion people would open their minds up and think about the fact that EVERYONE needs clothes and EVERYONE is willing to spend money on clothes.
posted by bleep at 1:55 PM on November 12, 2014
Is it just me, or does anyone else look at the fit of that left cup in the first photo and think "geez, that woman is wearing the wrong size bra." It'd be nice if the commitment to "in between" sizes would include the development of products that actually properly fit larger bosoms.
posted by likeatoaster at 2:40 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by likeatoaster at 2:40 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that you could build a successful brand on marketing to "real women" --- I bet there's a huge opportunity there for someone canny enough to exploit it.
Confession time! I have always been fascinated by the shopping channels on tv, mostly by things like the cheesy porcelain tchotchkes of yore and the uncanny valley/Norman Rockwell/NOT LA OR NY America of the hosts and call-in viewers. These days, as they evolve into just another form of electronic retailing, my interest has waned for all but the occasional kitchen gadget or make-up presentations.
With all that out of the way, I've watched enough over the years to know that they seem to have found a very successful formula selling fashions (some in-house brands, some name brands with "exclusive" lines) across all sizes (up to 3x I think) in every item. In addition, I believe they strive for consistent sizing across all their lines so that if you are a size 10 pants in DKNY jeans you will be a size 10 in their in-house brand of jeans or another line of dressy slacks. A quick check shows they also have measurements in their sizing guides, so in theory you should just need to figure out your sizes (pants, tops, etc) once.
I wouldn't describe any of their clothes as my style, but it looks like they cover a really wide range of styles that probably appeals to very real women.
So there's that.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:52 PM on November 12, 2014
Confession time! I have always been fascinated by the shopping channels on tv, mostly by things like the cheesy porcelain tchotchkes of yore and the uncanny valley/Norman Rockwell/NOT LA OR NY America of the hosts and call-in viewers. These days, as they evolve into just another form of electronic retailing, my interest has waned for all but the occasional kitchen gadget or make-up presentations.
With all that out of the way, I've watched enough over the years to know that they seem to have found a very successful formula selling fashions (some in-house brands, some name brands with "exclusive" lines) across all sizes (up to 3x I think) in every item. In addition, I believe they strive for consistent sizing across all their lines so that if you are a size 10 pants in DKNY jeans you will be a size 10 in their in-house brand of jeans or another line of dressy slacks. A quick check shows they also have measurements in their sizing guides, so in theory you should just need to figure out your sizes (pants, tops, etc) once.
I wouldn't describe any of their clothes as my style, but it looks like they cover a really wide range of styles that probably appeals to very real women.
So there's that.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:52 PM on November 12, 2014
Virtually all bra models are always wearing the wrong bra size. It's fucking uncanny.
posted by Sara C. at 2:52 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Sara C. at 2:52 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
if a couple hundred dollars doesn't buy you a decent chance of getting the right size, why?
That's the thing though. RTW is made for a speculative average person. Whether it makes sense to claim that this person is or should be slender, with a B-cup and a .8 waist-hip ratio (or whatever) is a different issue, but the patternmaker has to start somewhere, with one set of proportions. The same jeans will not look the same on two people of the same size but with different proportions, because one of them will be closer to the proportions of that particular brand's sample size and fit model than the other.
In general, no one is going to produce the same dress in a range of sizes and then also a range of cup sizes and apex heights and back waist lengths. BUT, in cases like jeans, different figure cuts are exactly that—the idea that you might fit generic 10 measurements but with a fuller seat or smaller waist or whatever. This is also why specialty clothing brands exist that are cut for larger cup sizes, extra-petite people, plus size, etc. Everybody has figure variations, almost no one really fits perfectly into any off-the-rack size, and short of making your own clothes or having them made, the best you can do is identify the brands where the clothes fit you best and have alterations made as necessary.
Jeans are particularly challenging to shop for, but honestly, them's the breaks. There are a number of problems with finding jeans that fit: 1) The crotch curve is a complicated area of the body to fit at all; the challenge of all clothing production—figuring out how to make flat fabric curve over and around non-flat areas—is most complex in pants, where there are many eccentric curves coming together; 2) the closer the desired fit, the more accurately the structure has to echo your particular lumps and bumps, and most women wear their jeans much, much closer to the body than they do any other item of non-stretch clothing; 3) thicker/stiffer fabric is less forgiving of fit problems, hence why most women's jeans have some % spandex at this point. There's just no way to get something that tight to look good on anyone who isn't the fit model without it.
I think the garment industry has many, many problems, not least of which is pushing an "ideal" figure that is very difficult to achieve for most people (I'll never be shaped like that, for sure). I think there are lots of things that could and should change about clothing production and marketing to be more inclusive and progressive. But I also think it's unrealistic to expect that a mass-produced item will ever fit something as individual as a body perfectly for 99.99% of people without alterations.
posted by peachfuzz at 2:55 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's the thing though. RTW is made for a speculative average person. Whether it makes sense to claim that this person is or should be slender, with a B-cup and a .8 waist-hip ratio (or whatever) is a different issue, but the patternmaker has to start somewhere, with one set of proportions. The same jeans will not look the same on two people of the same size but with different proportions, because one of them will be closer to the proportions of that particular brand's sample size and fit model than the other.
In general, no one is going to produce the same dress in a range of sizes and then also a range of cup sizes and apex heights and back waist lengths. BUT, in cases like jeans, different figure cuts are exactly that—the idea that you might fit generic 10 measurements but with a fuller seat or smaller waist or whatever. This is also why specialty clothing brands exist that are cut for larger cup sizes, extra-petite people, plus size, etc. Everybody has figure variations, almost no one really fits perfectly into any off-the-rack size, and short of making your own clothes or having them made, the best you can do is identify the brands where the clothes fit you best and have alterations made as necessary.
Jeans are particularly challenging to shop for, but honestly, them's the breaks. There are a number of problems with finding jeans that fit: 1) The crotch curve is a complicated area of the body to fit at all; the challenge of all clothing production—figuring out how to make flat fabric curve over and around non-flat areas—is most complex in pants, where there are many eccentric curves coming together; 2) the closer the desired fit, the more accurately the structure has to echo your particular lumps and bumps, and most women wear their jeans much, much closer to the body than they do any other item of non-stretch clothing; 3) thicker/stiffer fabric is less forgiving of fit problems, hence why most women's jeans have some % spandex at this point. There's just no way to get something that tight to look good on anyone who isn't the fit model without it.
I think the garment industry has many, many problems, not least of which is pushing an "ideal" figure that is very difficult to achieve for most people (I'll never be shaped like that, for sure). I think there are lots of things that could and should change about clothing production and marketing to be more inclusive and progressive. But I also think it's unrealistic to expect that a mass-produced item will ever fit something as individual as a body perfectly for 99.99% of people without alterations.
posted by peachfuzz at 2:55 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
RTW is made for a speculative average person
I am that person, and no, it's not.
posted by Sara C. at 2:58 PM on November 12, 2014
I am that person, and no, it's not.
posted by Sara C. at 2:58 PM on November 12, 2014
(And when I say those clothes aren't my style, I mean that I basically don't have any style. I dress very casually these days; I didn't mean that the clothes aren't necessarily stylish or nice.)
posted by Room 641-A at 3:01 PM on November 12, 2014
posted by Room 641-A at 3:01 PM on November 12, 2014
A quick check shows they also have measurements in their sizing guides, so in theory you should just need to figure out your sizes (pants, tops, etc) once.
VERY much in theory, since I've rarely run across a size chart that actually is consistent with the actual clothing. According to some online retailers' size charts, I should be wearing a 12 or 14. Which I then almost always end up sending back and exchanging for an 8 or 10, depending on just how much too big the original garment was. I'd be perfectly OK with being a 12 or 14 (and, again, sometimes I am, which is why I'm probably going to be one of the last bricks-and-mortar holdouts) if the damn clothes just fit like the seller's chart says they should.
posted by skybluepink at 3:11 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
VERY much in theory, since I've rarely run across a size chart that actually is consistent with the actual clothing. According to some online retailers' size charts, I should be wearing a 12 or 14. Which I then almost always end up sending back and exchanging for an 8 or 10, depending on just how much too big the original garment was. I'd be perfectly OK with being a 12 or 14 (and, again, sometimes I am, which is why I'm probably going to be one of the last bricks-and-mortar holdouts) if the damn clothes just fit like the seller's chart says they should.
posted by skybluepink at 3:11 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I am that person, and no, it's not.
I don't think I understand what you're saying. You can't be that person, because that person doesn't exist, it's a hypothetical example "person" that is sometimes a moving average derived from sampling and survey data, sometimes a set of outdated specifications, sometimes an idealized version of a single real person (a fit model). It's not the actual average consumer. And yes, this is how most rtw clothes are still planned and produced. Am I missing something?
posted by peachfuzz at 3:40 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't think I understand what you're saying. You can't be that person, because that person doesn't exist, it's a hypothetical example "person" that is sometimes a moving average derived from sampling and survey data, sometimes a set of outdated specifications, sometimes an idealized version of a single real person (a fit model). It's not the actual average consumer. And yes, this is how most rtw clothes are still planned and produced. Am I missing something?
posted by peachfuzz at 3:40 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
What I'm saying is that the problem isn't "well look you can't expect every brand to make a gigantic range of sizes, ultimately they have to appeal to the average person".
Well I am the average person. I am squarely in the "demo" for women's clothing. I don't wear plus sizes, and at most stores I'm not even in the top tier of sizes. I'm the person who has trouble shopping sales because they almost always sell out of my size in everything. If we're comparing women's clothes to AAA video games and dudebro culture, I am that cheeto eating basement dweller everyone wants to appeal to.
And yet I have a really, really hard time shopping for clothes that fit. I have a hard time looking at clothing advertising/editorial/fashion magazines and figuring out whether I can wear anything from that brand. Every shopping trip is a nightmare, and honestly at this point I do a lot of my clothes shopping at places like Buffalo Exchange simply because it's easier (dozens of brands grouped by size, color, and garment type), and not at all because I can't afford to buy new clothes.
I really don't buy that retailers can't make clothes that fit normal people because of some kind of technology gap. I think they don't do it because the entire industry is built on making women feel bad about ourselves. Even if you are the "average" size it makes economic sense for the brands to appeal to.
posted by Sara C. at 4:00 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well I am the average person. I am squarely in the "demo" for women's clothing. I don't wear plus sizes, and at most stores I'm not even in the top tier of sizes. I'm the person who has trouble shopping sales because they almost always sell out of my size in everything. If we're comparing women's clothes to AAA video games and dudebro culture, I am that cheeto eating basement dweller everyone wants to appeal to.
And yet I have a really, really hard time shopping for clothes that fit. I have a hard time looking at clothing advertising/editorial/fashion magazines and figuring out whether I can wear anything from that brand. Every shopping trip is a nightmare, and honestly at this point I do a lot of my clothes shopping at places like Buffalo Exchange simply because it's easier (dozens of brands grouped by size, color, and garment type), and not at all because I can't afford to buy new clothes.
I really don't buy that retailers can't make clothes that fit normal people because of some kind of technology gap. I think they don't do it because the entire industry is built on making women feel bad about ourselves. Even if you are the "average" size it makes economic sense for the brands to appeal to.
posted by Sara C. at 4:00 PM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Diablevert: "Inasmuch as fashion is about selling desire, would we not expect that a model to be taller than average, thinner than average, as well as prettier than average?"
Totally agree and understand the forces at work and I'm happy to look at Heidi Klum wearing pretty clothes (her in particular because I think she's hilarious) and I don't really mind "lifestyle" advertising by brands where they show all the pretty people playing sailing or playing polo or running through parklands in ballgowns or whatever.
But in the past fashion advertising (even for mid-market brands) was very limited and expensive -- fashion magazines, newspaper circulars, mailed advertisements, celebrity red carpets, maybe billboards in Times Square -- and it's understandable why a brand would exclusively feature "aspirational" bodies in their limited advertisements. Today, fashion advertising is essentially limitless, because so much of it is done via the web, and people are totally saturated with the "aspirational" bodies via celebrity blogs and magazines, news coverage of big ad campaigns, reality TV shows about fashion, etc. And these brands could still use those as the major public face of their brand in national advertising campaigns while also featuring many different bodies on their websites. I think that's the frustration of a lot of people, that you go to the website for some particular brand to look at a particular piece of clothing in a size 14, that they sell in a size 14 -- that they sell up to a size 26! -- and the only picture is a 5'10", 125# model in a size 2 and you have NO IDEA how that shirt will look on you, a short size 14. If that were just some of the time, that'd be the breaks, but that is ALL OF THE TIME AND ALL OF THE PICTURES.
Fashion advertising and clothing modeling is no longer limited by the extremely limited space of print media, but most clothing companies still run all their ad campaigns like they are, and it's intensely frustrating.
(And, in fact, smart brands HAVE been reaching out to plus-size and "in-between" fashion bloggers to have THEM model the clothes; or have been having customers post their own photos a la ModCloth; or have models that reflect their demographic -- Talbots has always been marketed to women in their 40s to 60s, but only lately have their catalogs featured women in their 40s to 60s, some of whom look like they may have borne children, for at least some of the clothing!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:50 PM on November 12, 2014
Totally agree and understand the forces at work and I'm happy to look at Heidi Klum wearing pretty clothes (her in particular because I think she's hilarious) and I don't really mind "lifestyle" advertising by brands where they show all the pretty people playing sailing or playing polo or running through parklands in ballgowns or whatever.
But in the past fashion advertising (even for mid-market brands) was very limited and expensive -- fashion magazines, newspaper circulars, mailed advertisements, celebrity red carpets, maybe billboards in Times Square -- and it's understandable why a brand would exclusively feature "aspirational" bodies in their limited advertisements. Today, fashion advertising is essentially limitless, because so much of it is done via the web, and people are totally saturated with the "aspirational" bodies via celebrity blogs and magazines, news coverage of big ad campaigns, reality TV shows about fashion, etc. And these brands could still use those as the major public face of their brand in national advertising campaigns while also featuring many different bodies on their websites. I think that's the frustration of a lot of people, that you go to the website for some particular brand to look at a particular piece of clothing in a size 14, that they sell in a size 14 -- that they sell up to a size 26! -- and the only picture is a 5'10", 125# model in a size 2 and you have NO IDEA how that shirt will look on you, a short size 14. If that were just some of the time, that'd be the breaks, but that is ALL OF THE TIME AND ALL OF THE PICTURES.
Fashion advertising and clothing modeling is no longer limited by the extremely limited space of print media, but most clothing companies still run all their ad campaigns like they are, and it's intensely frustrating.
(And, in fact, smart brands HAVE been reaching out to plus-size and "in-between" fashion bloggers to have THEM model the clothes; or have been having customers post their own photos a la ModCloth; or have models that reflect their demographic -- Talbots has always been marketed to women in their 40s to 60s, but only lately have their catalogs featured women in their 40s to 60s, some of whom look like they may have borne children, for at least some of the clothing!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:50 PM on November 12, 2014
I know I've said it in other threads, but all this focus on "aspirational" is at the root of the problem. The beauty industrial complex (fashion, cosmetics, skincare, hair removal, nail care, plastic surgery, fitness culture, etc) is built on the idea that something is wrong with women's bodies, and that we need to spend money to "fix" it. Except that it can never actually be fixed.
I mean, I get that people want to see attractive people showing off the clothes. Sure. I don't think anybody is really calling for all clothing to be modeled by strictly ordinary looking women as selected by a government panel focused on making all women in media perfectly average and never pretty.
But when the entire aim of advertising aimed at women is to send a message "you have problems, and all of those problems would be fixed if only you shopped at Madewell*", that's toxic towards human beings in general. And does need to change. Period. Not so much because I want jeans shopping to be easier, but because actual women literally die for the sake of these companies' bottom lines.
*"And, oh, did we mention, you need to be skinny to shop at Madewell**? So you might want to invest in a gym membership, too."
**Not limited to Madewell, of course.
posted by Sara C. at 6:17 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I mean, I get that people want to see attractive people showing off the clothes. Sure. I don't think anybody is really calling for all clothing to be modeled by strictly ordinary looking women as selected by a government panel focused on making all women in media perfectly average and never pretty.
But when the entire aim of advertising aimed at women is to send a message "you have problems, and all of those problems would be fixed if only you shopped at Madewell*", that's toxic towards human beings in general. And does need to change. Period. Not so much because I want jeans shopping to be easier, but because actual women literally die for the sake of these companies' bottom lines.
*"And, oh, did we mention, you need to be skinny to shop at Madewell**? So you might want to invest in a gym membership, too."
**Not limited to Madewell, of course.
posted by Sara C. at 6:17 PM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
> models in a range of sizes/shapes would be nice
And ages!
There was a recent ask.me about clothes for grown-ass men. All the links were to those clothes on 20-something models. Not just skinny, but boyish. No gravitas or gray hair. Not just unrelatable, but some of them looked like young men playing dress up.
posted by morganw at 9:04 PM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
And ages!
There was a recent ask.me about clothes for grown-ass men. All the links were to those clothes on 20-something models. Not just skinny, but boyish. No gravitas or gray hair. Not just unrelatable, but some of them looked like young men playing dress up.
posted by morganw at 9:04 PM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
What I'm saying is that the problem isn't "well look you can't expect every brand to make a gigantic range of sizes, ultimately they have to appeal to the average person".
...
I really don't buy that retailers can't make clothes that fit normal people because of some kind of technology gap.
That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not using "average" as code for "normal" (whatever that means) or "not a model". A given item of clothing is designed for a sample set of measurements, because you can't make patterns without knowing the shape you want to create. A basic sloper for a dress is based on one specific combination of like thirty-six different length, width, and depth measurements. These sample measurements are representative, an average of the measurements of all the different people who might wear that size. It's not a value judgement about what someone who wears that size should look like (not technically, anyway, though I get that that's the effect). It doesn't match anyone exactly, because the average of a thousand different data sets with thirty-six dimensions each probably will not match any one set exactly for all thirty-six points.
If you can buy clothes that are generally the right size, the system is working like it's supposed to. If those clothes don't fit perfectly in every respect, well, that's the case for 99.99% of all the people who bought those clothes, barring the rando few who happen to be exactly the same in every dimension as the sample for that size, in that brand, in that season. Say we're both size 10s of the same height and general shape. But you buy size 10 jeans and they squeeze your waist; I buy the same jeans and the waist is fine but the hips are too tight. These are individual deviations that went into but are still outside the result of the average; why should more clothes be made for your variation than for mine?
Or maybe this is less loaded: Say molded masks were the latest thing, and you bought them off the rack. Manufacturers would make a generic mask, maybe in several different sizes and a few specialty products for sufficiently different faces, like a version for large noses or a very square face. But even if nothing about your face is a statistical outlier, would you expect the generic mask of the correct size to fit every plane and curve and angle of your face perfectly, the way one cast from your actual features would? I mean, I have to try on thirty pairs of glasses to find a pair that looks halfway decent and fits my nose and ears and centers my pupils properly, and then I still have to get them adjusted to really fit. And glasses have to fit only a few square inches of face, not square feet of body with much wider ranges of potential variance.
I'm not trying to say WELP DEAL WITH IT or to defend lazy or bad practices, and I think it's a shame that RTW is sold like it should fit you perfectly and something is wrong with you if it doesn't, when it's really like the generic mask. I'm not claiming that fashion isn't fucked up or that marketing aimed at women isn't problematic for a depressingly long list of reasons. I think there are lots of things that could better empower consumers, like providing all relevant dimensions for every item, or even more thorough size charts that could give you a better idea of how you do or don't match up to the sample set. Or construction that's easier to alter, though I have no hope for that in the age of cheap overlocking. Or showing samples from across the size range, and being honest about how they're actually supposed to fit—you'll notice that RTW often actually looks quite shitty and obviously pinned/taped in hero shots, too tight in the shoulders/too short/too loose in the bust, ironically because the super-tall and super-thin model is several standard deviations away from the sample measurements that size is actually made for. Or keeping better and more realistic pace with the actual consumer population—manufacturers do change their sample specs, see "vanity" sizing or even the less-defined waist today vs. twenty years ago in the same brand, but probably not fast enough. Or making more clothes for a wider range of people, or more micro-sizes, or or or.
All that said, it's still true that the first reason ready-made clothes don't fit anyone perfectly is because they're not custom-made clothes, not just because Calvin Klein wants to make women sad and desperate.
posted by peachfuzz at 10:57 PM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
...
I really don't buy that retailers can't make clothes that fit normal people because of some kind of technology gap.
That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not using "average" as code for "normal" (whatever that means) or "not a model". A given item of clothing is designed for a sample set of measurements, because you can't make patterns without knowing the shape you want to create. A basic sloper for a dress is based on one specific combination of like thirty-six different length, width, and depth measurements. These sample measurements are representative, an average of the measurements of all the different people who might wear that size. It's not a value judgement about what someone who wears that size should look like (not technically, anyway, though I get that that's the effect). It doesn't match anyone exactly, because the average of a thousand different data sets with thirty-six dimensions each probably will not match any one set exactly for all thirty-six points.
If you can buy clothes that are generally the right size, the system is working like it's supposed to. If those clothes don't fit perfectly in every respect, well, that's the case for 99.99% of all the people who bought those clothes, barring the rando few who happen to be exactly the same in every dimension as the sample for that size, in that brand, in that season. Say we're both size 10s of the same height and general shape. But you buy size 10 jeans and they squeeze your waist; I buy the same jeans and the waist is fine but the hips are too tight. These are individual deviations that went into but are still outside the result of the average; why should more clothes be made for your variation than for mine?
Or maybe this is less loaded: Say molded masks were the latest thing, and you bought them off the rack. Manufacturers would make a generic mask, maybe in several different sizes and a few specialty products for sufficiently different faces, like a version for large noses or a very square face. But even if nothing about your face is a statistical outlier, would you expect the generic mask of the correct size to fit every plane and curve and angle of your face perfectly, the way one cast from your actual features would? I mean, I have to try on thirty pairs of glasses to find a pair that looks halfway decent and fits my nose and ears and centers my pupils properly, and then I still have to get them adjusted to really fit. And glasses have to fit only a few square inches of face, not square feet of body with much wider ranges of potential variance.
I'm not trying to say WELP DEAL WITH IT or to defend lazy or bad practices, and I think it's a shame that RTW is sold like it should fit you perfectly and something is wrong with you if it doesn't, when it's really like the generic mask. I'm not claiming that fashion isn't fucked up or that marketing aimed at women isn't problematic for a depressingly long list of reasons. I think there are lots of things that could better empower consumers, like providing all relevant dimensions for every item, or even more thorough size charts that could give you a better idea of how you do or don't match up to the sample set. Or construction that's easier to alter, though I have no hope for that in the age of cheap overlocking. Or showing samples from across the size range, and being honest about how they're actually supposed to fit—you'll notice that RTW often actually looks quite shitty and obviously pinned/taped in hero shots, too tight in the shoulders/too short/too loose in the bust, ironically because the super-tall and super-thin model is several standard deviations away from the sample measurements that size is actually made for. Or keeping better and more realistic pace with the actual consumer population—manufacturers do change their sample specs, see "vanity" sizing or even the less-defined waist today vs. twenty years ago in the same brand, but probably not fast enough. Or making more clothes for a wider range of people, or more micro-sizes, or or or.
All that said, it's still true that the first reason ready-made clothes don't fit anyone perfectly is because they're not custom-made clothes, not just because Calvin Klein wants to make women sad and desperate.
posted by peachfuzz at 10:57 PM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
« Older The founder of the Mormon Church had up to 40... | AND THE WORLD AND THE WORLD AND THE WORLD Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:19 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]