I'm probably an 7/8 and I fit fine in mainstream lines! Does she mean high fashion?

 Reply

A lot of women have trouble because your waist is a 10 but your butt is a 14, or whatever. That's assuming you can find clothes you like in your size, of course. And THEN the sizes don't mean anything anyone, being as they are subject to creative inflation.

Why can't women's clothing be sized like men's? With measurements instead of arbitrary numbers. And to further improve it, clothes could come in different sizes in various "zones," like, pants would have butt and thigh measurements as well as waist and length.

I have this fantasy of a store where I could get clothing customized to fit my short legs, small but long waist, etc etc. And since I can't afford a tailor,a fantasy it will remain.

 Reply

I actually haven't really seen them, I just love the name.

 Reply

Here's another issue I have:

It seems like there have ALWAYS been plus-sized zebra-striped, or sequined, or spangled, or absurdly embroidered, or OMG CABBAGE-SIZED FLORAL PRINT-printed tunics. Some days it seems like that's all you can get at damn Lane Bryant or whatever.

However, the longer, tunic-like length is "in" currently, as well as empire waists, and forgiving knit garments, and maxi dresses.

Now, I don't love it; I like a more structured, skimming look. But I wonder if the blousy, elongated, figure-concealing juniors/misses styles are simply translating themselves into the stuff that plus sizes have ALWAYS had to endure--I wonder if that's why there's a sudden focus on "OH IT IS SO EASY* TO GET TRENDY PLUS SIZES NOW LOL".

I mean, a tunic that's meant to be oversized can fit a lot of different shapes and sizes. A stretchy knit dress can hang loosely on a small model and be more fitted on a larger model. Both garments will technically "fit" a range of sizes--which means that designers and manufacturers can throw size tags at the garments, sure, but they don't have to carefully look at rises, inseams, hems, or positioning of arm holes. It's not like the really unforgiving microfiber/midriff/ultra low rise stuff from late last decade.

It would really irk me if there was such a big brouhaha about OMG THERE ARE PLUS SIZES NOW LOL!!11 if it was just a flash in the pan based on today's hideous, figure-swallowing styles. I'm not sure if I'm making my point very well. It just seems like a cop-out for a designer to say "OKAY WE MADE THIS MASSIVE PONCHO FOR EVERYONE, THAT'S TOTALLY PLUS SIZE RITE!??! LOL".

*for extremely variable values of "easy"

 Reply

Blargh. People need to remove their heads from their asses. That's all I got.

 Reply

The plus sized stuff? All the shirts looked like muu muus or either had some heinous, childish, 80s type screen printing on it. They were cheaply made, and came in some of the tackiest colors imaginable. If the junior shirts were in pretty shades of forest green, taupe and plum, the 'plus size' versions would be in neon pink, olive green and poo-brown. It was impossible to find accessories to go with them. The pants were even worse. Boot cut ONLY, and they were all high-rise jeans that wouldn't flatter anyone. To add insult to injury all the plus-size clothes were always at least five bucks more expensive than the 'junior' equivalent and were never put on clearance.

Oh, and the 'plus sized' mannequin was a size 8. We had to use clothes pins to keep the clothes on her, and they still fell off. Gah.

 Reply

But I'd prefer to see a line of clothing for people who are boobilicious. I'm tired of looking at rack after rack of maxi dresses.

 Reply