Post: #1

I am going back to EE in a few days, and I have some solid female friends (gamewise 3-4, character-wise 8-9) there I want to do a favor for. Levi's are about $100 a pair there, versus maybe $30 in Marshall's so I asked them their sizes and looked for comparison charts to find out European vs. USA sizes.

You can guess the dreary news I encountered. Although in the college town I am in, if you were in your 20 or early 30's I think you could clean up-- there is a HUGE (hahah) difference between lower class obesity and middle class obesity--Whaleism is spreading ( hahahahahah) quickly.

This is slightly indirectly related to game, but it is such a pressing-- literally if a hippo is on top of you-- concern that I thought it was worth letting us know:

THE LARDING UP OF AMERICAN FEMALES IS VERY. VERY OBJECTIVELY REAL.

"...In 1958, for example, a size 8 corresponded with a bust of 31 inches, a waist of 23.5 inches and a hip girth of 32.5 inches. In ASTM’s 2008 standards, a size 8 had increased by five to six inches in each of those three measurements, becoming the rough equivalent of a size 14 or 16 in 1958...."

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/desig...se_.2.html


From the Above Article:
But we haven’t really done away with the O’Brien Shelton data entirely. ASTM International, a private organization that comes up with voluntary product standards, has, since 1995, published a table of body measurements for women’s sizing, using the basic nomenclature and system developed by the 1958 commercial standard. “The numbers keep getting massaged,” says Boorady. “Nothing gets reinvented.”
The ASTM recommendations have evolved over time to accommodate a very real trend: vanity sizing. Women don’t want to know their real size, so manufacturers re-label bigger sizes with smaller numbers. In 1958, for example, a size 8 corresponded with a bust of 31 inches, a waist of 23.5 inches and a hip girth of 32.5 inches. In ASTM’s 2008 standards, a size 8 had increased by five to six inches in each of those three measurements, becoming the rough equivalent of a size 14 or 16 in 1958. We can see size inflation happening over shorter time spans as well; a size 2 in the 2011 ASTM standard falls between a 1995 standard size 4 and 6. (This may also explain why smaller sizes are constantly invented. The 1958 standard listed 8 as its smallest size. The 1995 ASTM standard listed a size 2. In 2011, ASTM lists a standard for size 00.)

Post: #2

Several news articles have already pointed out this fact during the last few years. I think The Economist was one of the first. Anyways, this issue of ever-expanding dress sizes really conceals the huge scale (pun intended) of the problem.

Post: #3

Haha.

I like to think if we had a player Roosh as president, he'd mandate that women's clothing sizes were simple measurements, like waist and hip circumference.

After all, we have such government agencies for ensuring that scales at gas stations are accurate. Why not for an even dearer resource, our women?