Talk:Vanity sizing

Unsubstantiated claims

- that vanity sizing has improved self-esteem in women; - that this change has led to decreases in depression; - that suicide rates among women have dropped; - that this drop is linked to the self-esteem gains caused by vanity sizing. 207.162.58.3 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity sizing is no myth

Haha, I can attest to the reality of vanity sizing. I came into my final body size and shape ten years ago, at the age of 14. Since that time, I have been exactly 5'7.5", 127 lbs., with a 27-inch waist and 37-inch hips. I know, because I've always been an obsessive measurer. My whole post-pubescent life I was a size 5. Suddenly, about 2 years ago, I went clothes shopping and noticed that size 5 clothes, which I used to be able to buy off the rack without trying on, were now very loose on me. "That's funny, it can't be that I've lost weight, since all my old clothes still fit me just the same as they always have," I thought. But just to be sure, I weighed myself at my next doctor's visit. Same old 127. I measured my waist and hips. Same old 27-37. Great. The fashion industry calls the old size 5 a size 3 now. Another year passed, and I went clothes shopping again. Now the size 3's are too loose. Go back home, weigh and measure myself again. Same 127, 27-37. Fantastic. So now they're calling me a size 1. Next year they won't even make clothes my size and I'll have to shop by catalog. This wasn't at just one store, it was all of them!

Sadly, I can see this detracting some overweight women from diet and exercise. I mean, who needs to lose weight if you can suddenly fit into those single-digit sizes you always dreamed of, right? Remember that old magic number, every woman's holy grail, the fabled size 6? Well, since the current 6 is what used to be a 10 a couple of years ago... a modest BBW can now call hers the "perfect body". Who wouldn't buy a pair of jeans that sold you that? Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but a current size 6 being the 'old' size 10 measurements wouldn't have been that big back then, because as far as I know a size 10 used to be a 28 inch waist and 38 inch hips....hardly plus sized measurements!

Nowadays a size 10 might be a 32+ waist for all I know, BUT a size 6 with the above measurements, i.e. 28 waist & 38 hips is a perfectly good size for most women. When a size 6 becomes a 32+ inch waist then it will be 'plus sized'....but hopefully sizing will be scrapped altogether before it gets to that point and just measurements listed on clothes instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.209.132 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I'm ashamed to say that a current size 5/6 is what's fitting me nowadays, and I've gotten bigger lately and am at 39 hips. That's not exactly slim. Not plus-sized, but not slim or ideal by any standard (unless you're 6 feet tall...) And I'm not one to wear very tight clothes, so you can't say I'm sizing down and muffin-topping it. But you missed my point. I never said a size 6 was plus-sized. I said that women who used to be double-digit and have recently broken into the single digits may feel that they've reached their goal of wearing single-digit (e.g. a former size 13 who now fits a 9). This dissuades weight loss in a bad way, and I'm sticking to my guns on that. I do agree that they need to make clothing strictly labeled by actual measurement. That saves everyone a helluva lot of confusion. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity sizing definitely affects men's clothing too, at least in the United States and Canada. I'm a man, and there's a four-inch difference between my actual waist size (40") and the waist size printed on my jeans (36"). I've found this to be true for most jeans and dress pants from major retailers here (Gap, Levis, Le Chateau.) I've noticed that pants imported from Europe have more accurate sizing. 99.227.60.121 (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

This entire article, except for the final two sentences, is flat-out nonsense.

"Vanity sizing tends to occur in places where clothing sizes are not standardized, such as the United States." Excuse me, but nobody uses "standardized" sizing. Sizes are arbitrary constructions of each company for their target demographic (see here, here, and here). Please note that the "citations" in the article appear to be an article from a magazine in Toledo and some retired book dealer (Rod Collins) whose "research" consists of a table of international dress sizes for which he neither links to the source or notes the dates or the target demography.
Of course a 32" waist is a 32" waist, but there are differences in clothes that are supposed to fit loose or tight, and there are other anthropometric differences such as torso length and shape, hip/waist and waist/bust ratios, etc. The apparent size creep phenomenon discussed here only occurs in the arbitrary sizing schemes such as those used extensively in women's clothing ("size 12"), everything else has to do with that manufacturer's desired shape; they even use Fitting models selected for this purpose. Note that a men's M today is larger than a M 50 years ago.
Expensive clothes are targeted toward a specific demographic: the wealthy. The wealthy tend to be thinner. Duh.
Lower cost clothes are targeted toward the greater mass of people, and that demographic cohort is growing in girth (a point made in the closing sentence of the article, almost in passing). Manufacturers constantly update their sizes for the spread of their target demography. The comments above confirm this: if you are the same physical dimensions, and you now buy "smaller" sizes, then the fact that sizing follows demography easily explains the phenomenon. If you want to "go back" to your old size, simply go to a much more upscale store. There, where they would be more likely to appeal to their customers' vanity, you will suddenly discover that vanity sizing is a myth.
Yet the article also says quite clearly that more expensive clothing is smaller, which proves THE OPPOSITE of vanity sizing!

For more details, and anthropometric data, please see here, here (about the Japanese market), here (about Argentina), etc. Ehusman (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing about designer clothing being smaller... all that tells you is that the mass market has vanity sized - which makes up 99% of what Americans wear - but upscale labels have not. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it most certainly is not nonsense or a myth but a recent clothing retail scam to sell more clothes and 'normalize' obesity, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26442420 81.110.28.183 (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vanity sizing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013024904/http://www.wnwo.com/Global/story.asp?S=1771013&nav=1aI8M8qf to http://www.wnwo.com/Global/story.asp?S=1771013&nav=1aI8M8qf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leil4hhh (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Glo.rriaa.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]