Ladies clothing sizes, why?

[Loosehead]

Now regulars on here would know that this would not normally be a subject that concerns me however I feel that the ladies clothing system of Size 4-6-8-10-12-14-16 etc is very divisive in the body image that women have of themselves, now don't get me wrong we blokes have our own problems but we just go into a shop and buy clothes based on direct measurements, ie inches round the waist, inside leg etc. I have also heard that one shop's size 10 is another's size 12. So how did ladies clothes ever end up being sold by this silly size N configuration? Why don't they start using inches?

[4getmenot]

I'd have thought our sizing was alot easier than mens

[Queenbee S]

If they used inches there would be reams and reams of racks of clothes it would be too complicated. Womens bodies are a bit more complex than mens, for the fact that we are generally curvy ! And the current sizing method is probably the easiest.

[4getmenot]

yer think of all them different shirts men have, for chest sizes, neck sizes, probably down to the fact they never try anything on!!

[Octavius]

For men it is really quite simple. You have trousers which come in a variety of girths, with short, medium or long legs (in inches). With shirts you have neck size (in inches). With jackets you have chest size by girth with short, medium or long lengths (in inches). If you go into modern/European type shops you might even see measurements in centimetres, which is really confusing. But what annoys me is when they just don�t have your size!

The variation in women�s sizes between one shop and another (i.e. we all know that Next sizes come up a little larger than other High St brands right?) is down to an 80�s penchant for something called vanity sizing. Over the years, vanity sizing has ensured that standardised clothing measurements have become less reliable. If a woman finds that she can fit into a "smaller" size she is more likely to buy the dress, even if it is not actually smaller but has merely been labelled as such. Some of you who are into vintage clothing that a size 10 or 12 of the 1960�s say, would seem considerably smaller than a size 10 or 12 now.

As we all know, size matters, but numbers don�t really do they? Numbers can be misleading - is a size 0 model someone who has shrunk themselves to �nothing�? Are they really 12 sizes smaller than a size 12 person? Size 12 is roughly designed around three measurements: bust 35in, waist 28in, hips 38in. And then, for every one that you remove from the size, you should remove one inch from each of the measurements. If numbers are to be believed in the headlines then is Vicky Beckham�s 23 inch waist really a size 0? No, she would a be a size 7. Still ridiculously thin, but a size 7 is not as eye boggling in the headlines. Personally I think size 12 model, Lauren Moller is cracking.

[Loosehead]

I think I'm right in saying that the size 0 is a US thing equating to a size 4 here, Ie 12 year old!

[Goodsoulette]

Even most 12 yr olds couldnt fit it into it. I was 5'7and a a size 10 at aged 11 (and then when I couldnt fit into a 10 anymore my mum made stand in front of the mirror to look at myself cause my thighs didnt touch at the top anymore, no wonder where my on off relationship with food developed). I do remember when I was younger a size 10 was a 24 inch waist.

[Goodsoulette]

oh not it wasnt it was a 24 inch waist, a 12 a 26 and a 14 was a 28