0
0

[–] buddyp ago 

Yep, it's crazy how things have evolved(more like devolved) to where we have to take into account the feelings of fats.

0
1

[–] ElectricPurple 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The girls' kid largest shirt size is too big on me.

Fuck vanity sizing.

0
0

[–] ShitLordLA [S] ago 

Ya, its pretty damn bad. My wife shops in the kids sections at a lot of retailers as well. High fashion, which tends to run smaller, fits better on her cause she's 5'8".

0
1

[–] Arlaeflores 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I like Abercrombie and Fitch for pants, I also think we should measure pants in waist measurements

0
0

[–] ShitLordLA [S] ago 

Mens pants are measured in waist measurements. But even that has been skewed by vanity sizing...but more subtly.

It used to be that pants were meant to sit at the true waist..which is above the hip bones slightly lower than the bellybutton. Now people wear their pants much lower, which on men tends to be a smaller area (even for the gorgebeasts) than the true waist. So if you have a 38" true waist you might have a 35" "pant size" because of this sly vanity sizing.

0
4

[–] MyOtherAcctGotBanned 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

That's what I think of everytime the cows say they are the same size as Marilyn Monroe. She was a size 12 but something like 115 lbs.

0
2

[–] ShitLordLA [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yes....and that was at 5'5 w/ a 36" bust measurement. The faterhams w/ the Monroe "argument" are just unbelievably delusional.

Not even taking into account that like.....Marilyn Monroe for much of her career was before universal sizing was put in place. Or the fact that most of what celebrities wear isn't off the rack anyway.

Fats are just fucking stupid.

0
1

[–] Daucus7 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

And they always use that picture of her when she was PREGNANT.

0
2

[–] idontgetbacon 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I am finally realizing (personally experiencing) what everyone is talking about with vanity sizing and I have to agree... it's a messed up system. I made the transition back to human and had to go get new pants. No big deal, with a BMI in the 23's I grabbed an 8, since that's high-normal in my head. Oh no... apparently I'm a size 4. In my head, it should be a medium and a 6-8 range based on weight/height and BMI.

So... why do they complain that 0 is "unobtainable" if that will most likely fit when I'm down to the 20's (120 would be exactly 20 BMI)? That thought honestly bothered me more than it should.