Post: #1

How often have you heard from a SJW that Marilyn Monroe was a size 8. Well, a new article from Washington Post lays bare the women's clothing vanity sizing phenomenon -- "size inflation" if you will. Apparently "size 8 dress of 1958 doesn't even have a modern-day equivalent — the waist and bust measurements of a Mad Men-era 8 come in smaller than today's size 00."

The article, which also links to an info-graphic named Crazy American Obesity in Four Graphics, shows how American women are getting fatter far faster than we thought.

Post: #2

Yeah, totally true. I had a few ties made from a beautiful dress of my grandmother's after she died (for my father, brothers, uncle)--it was an "8"--grandmother was really quite slim. In contrast, my ex wore modern "8" and while not fat at all was kinda "soccer player "8"--i.e., not slim. lolololozz

Post: #3

This confirms what I thought. Years ago I worked in clothing recycling, making cleaning rags for mechanics and such. American sizes were always one smaller than Australian sizes. A size 10 Aussie would be an 8 American. 8 Australian being the smallest, anything less was children's sizes. Basically it went; 8 = tiny, 10 = hot, 12 = WB, 14 = bit porky, 16 = serious fatty, 18+ = obese.
Then I noticed people talking about "size four" and I thought what the fuck is a size four? That's like a little girl.
Then I hear people talking (in American movies, TV, etc) about "size zero"" which used to be babywear, but they mean a ladies "10"... I think "What is going on here?"
From what I can gather, an American woman could have gone from a thin teenager in 1999-2000 to an obese landwhale today, and still claim to wear the same size clothes as when she left school.

Post: #4

While not discounting the theme, or perhaps I don't know enough about women's clothing, is the graph suggesting Marilyn Monroe, being size 8, only had a 31" bust/bra size? Just seems abnormally low since I always considered 34/36 to be in the norm for healthy, reasonably in shape girls, and she was certainly at least curvey.

Post: #5

You got a point there, seems most claims put her at 35-37 bust, which would have been in the curvy but bangable 12-14 on the old Aussie scale.

Post: #6

To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

It makes sense...clothes sizes should be relative not absolute.

Post: #7

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

I'm not sure where you are shopping, but when I buy my pants, I buy a 32 and that means 32 inches, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm guessing 32 inches is still going to be 32 inches in 30 years.

Incidentally, in the same regions where a men's 32 is a men's 32, women's sizes are in no way standardized.

Post: #8

Well Crash probably meant sizes like L, M, S etc. for t-shirts, but yes generally men's sizes are actual measurements that don't change.

Post: #9

Women's sizes are all subjective. Could you imagine if they sized their clothes with actually waist size numbers like mens pants? Ohh the humanity.

Post: #10

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

It makes sense...clothes sizes should be relative not absolute.

But the problem with that is I'm old enough to recall the days when, for 90% of the women, slim was the norm.

Post: #11

It all went downhill towards the end of the 70s, like everything else. I clearly remember in my school in the 70s there was only one fat kid, ONE !

Post: #12

(08-24-2015 07:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

I'm not sure where you are shopping, but when I buy my pants, I buy a 32 and that means 32 inches, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm guessing 32 inches is still going to be 32 inches in 30 years.

Incidentally, in the same regions where a men's 32 is a men's 32, women's sizes are in no way standardized.

Depends on the brand. Pants also have vanity sizing in that if you lay your pants flat and measure they will likely be larger than The waist size. Some brands are closer to actual inch size than others.

Post: #13

Exactly. I can wear one waist measurement trousers/jeans from one shop and need an altogether different size from another.

When I was a teenager, I needed XL/XXL T shirts and tops, being a tall well built lad. I'm the same size now and take a M/L, depending on the brand.

It's no different to shopping abroad or buying a BMW based on its first number. You won't have a clue till you try them.

Post: #14

For men's pants there are different styles of cut that give different amounts of room for the pelvis and butt.

Back on topic, it is incredible that Marlin Monroe would now have to shop in the kids section. The bigger problem is what the food industry is allowed to sell as "food".

Post: #15

(08-24-2015 09:45 AM)Columbo Wrote:  It all went downhill towards the end of the 70s, like everything else. I clearly remember in my school in the 70s there was only one fat kid, ONE !

Well, there were actually two fat kids in school - one male, one female. Even they were quite svelte compared to the behemoths I see today. The fat girl of my school whom all the guys ignored would probably have a million orbiters today.

Post: #16

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

It makes sense...clothes sizes should be relative not absolute.

No, the sizes should be in centimeters of some circumferences.
Different fashion brands, seem to have their own sizes, which cost the customer some extra time while shopping and makes online shopping more difficult.

Post: #17

(08-24-2015 11:32 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

It makes sense...clothes sizes should be relative not absolute.

No, the sizes should be in centimeters of some circumferences.
Different fashion brands, seem to have their own sizes, which cost the customer some extra time while shopping and makes online shopping more difficult.

Well, whatever they "should" be...is clearly not happening out here in the real world.

Same as the women's clothes in the OP.

Post: #18

(08-24-2015 11:37 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 11:32 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

It makes sense...clothes sizes should be relative not absolute.

No, the sizes should be in centimeters of some circumferences.
Different fashion brands, seem to have their own sizes, which cost the customer some extra time while shopping and makes online shopping more difficult.

Well, whatever they "should" be...is clearly not happening out here in the real world.

Same as the women's clothes in the OP.

Section on 'vanity sizing' starts at 15:15:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tq1vk
Long story short, the waist size is a theoretical waist, since we don't typically wear our trousers or jeans that high up.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #19

(08-24-2015 07:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

I'm not sure where you are shopping, but when I buy my pants, I buy a 32 and that means 32 inches, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm guessing 32 inches is still going to be 32 inches in 30 years.

Incidentally, in the same regions where a men's 32 is a men's 32, women's sizes are in no way standardized.

I've seen "Extra Slim" fit shirts which were comically huge on me, so I would say the same thing is happening to some extent with regard to men's clothing. I agree that size 32 pants are still the same size that size 32 pants used to be.

Post: #20

The interesting interplay here is the inverse relationship that goes along with increasing women's sizes. The bigger they go, the smaller the countries dicks get. Some day the vast majority of the male population will be walking around with undescended testicles. Strangely enough this will serve a dual purpose as the gravitational fields of American girls will be so strong it would rip a normal dick out by the root.

Post: #21

Since we're using 32" as an example I think this is worth mentioning. As you probably know 32 is relatively lean, but by no means POW or anything. I recently bought a men's size "S for small" belt. A dude who wears size 32 pants would need to punch another hole past the last (smallest) hole of said belt.

Post: #22

(08-25-2015 01:25 AM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  Since we're using 32" as an example I think this is worth mentioning. As you probably know 32 is relatively lean, but by no means POW or anything. I recently bought a men's size "S for small" belt. A dude who wears size 32 pants would need to punch another hole past the last (smallest) hole of said belt.

Fortunately, I live in Asia.

Post: #23

(08-24-2015 03:26 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 07:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(08-24-2015 07:01 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  To be fair, the same thing has happened to mens' clothing too.

I'm not sure where you are shopping, but when I buy my pants, I buy a 32 and that means 32 inches, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm guessing 32 inches is still going to be 32 inches in 30 years.

Incidentally, in the same regions where a men's 32 is a men's 32, women's sizes are in no way standardized.

I've seen "Extra Slim" fit shirts which were comically huge on me, so I would say the same thing is happening to some extent with regard to men's clothing. I agree that size 32 pants are still the same size that size 32 pants used to be.

I wear an Express XS Extra slim fit, I have 34" chest and i work out. Chest fits beautifully but at the stomach that shirt blows out enough to make a dress, and the sleeves are like 4 inches longer... sizing my ass, more like wrapping.

I really gotta wonder who these shirts are made to fit. I mean, a guy with my chest, but arms 4" longer, and stomach 2x wider... what kind of creature is that?