The "Weight" Problem
j...@alice.uucp
Allow me to present a viewpoint that is somewhat at odds with
what I've seen here.
1) Given a particular person <sex isn't an issue for this part>,
a given weight is the most attractive. This weight may vary
with the body type of the person from near-fat to very skinny.
2) Lots of people are led, by various methods and arguments,
to adopt body styles that are not appropriate for their frame,
build, and general appearance. I propose that this is
wrong, unjust, and offensive, to say nothing of unhealthy.
Now, let's talk about women's clothes a bit.
It's been my experience that most women's clothing, especially
"designer" or "good" clothing, <I do NOT equate the two, I'm using
two different adjectives here> is built for the size seven model,
and size 12 (about which I am informed) is
build for someone with a waist the size of Mount Olympus, since there
is bloody well NO scaling (it's called "fitting" for some silly reason)
to different *relative* sizes of larger/smaller women. Due to the lack
of change of pattern/(in a shoe it would be called "last") the person
in size 12 clothing LOOKS FAT, regardless of whether she is fat, slightly
pudgy, or actually skinny (relative to the "best" body weight).
As a result, a lot of people find that they are perceived as fat
until they manage to loose enough weight that "standard" scale
clothing fits.<grumble>
For many, MANY women (especially, although this holds for men,
too, in different measurements) the weight at which they fit
"standard" clothing is much too light, to the point of being
unhealthily underweight. <Actually, it's my perception that
it's the other way around for men.>
I find this problem offensive. Comments?
As a side note, it seems that "low cost/low class" places like
K-Mart, Hills, etc, seem to have some clothes for the
36/26 instead of the 36/32 figure. I can't even begin to propose
a reason.
--
DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY!
"Indian Lake is a scene you can make with your little ones..."
(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
J. Eric Roskos
writing about women's clothing, says:
> Due to the lack of change of pattern/(in a shoe it would be
> called "last") the person in size 12 clothing LOOKS FAT,
> regardless of whether she is fat, slightly pudgy, or actually
> skinny (relative to the "best" body weight).
Why would clothing that doesn't fit make someone look fat? Wouldn't it just
look like they are wearing baggy clothing, or that their clothing won't stay
on? I can sympathize with this problem, inasmuch as I am thinner (at a
skeletal level) than most people of comparable height, and thus have
trouble finding clothing that fits; but the result is that it won't stay on
properly, or looks baggy.
I would suggest that the perception that it looks ``fat'' is in the eye of
the observer.
* I sincerely hope this is not a trademark of AT&T, but it came right out
of the parent article, honest.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
marie desjardins
> It's been my experience that most women's clothing, especially
> "designer" or "good" clothing, <I do NOT equate the two, I'm using
> two different adjectives here> is built for the size seven model,
> and size 12 (about which I am informed) is
> build for someone with a waist the size of Mount Olympus, since there
> is bloody well NO scaling (it's called "fitting" for some silly reason)
> to different *relative* sizes of larger/smaller women. Due to the lack
> of change of pattern/(in a shoe it would be called "last") the person
> in size 12 clothing LOOKS FAT, regardless of whether she is fat, slightly
> pudgy, or actually skinny (relative to the "best" body weight).
My experience has been a little different, mostly with designer jeans --
they're ALL size 6. Except the size 3's. Size 7 doesn't fit me, size 9
(which I usually wear) doesn't fit, 11 - no, 13 -no, and they don't make
them any bigger. It's the same problem -- they just assume that everybody
has what they consider to be the "ideal" body (no hips, no rear end, no
thighs, and VERY short) -- or if they don't, then they should squeeze them-
selves into these jeans anyway (which lots of locals around here (Boston)
do and look disgusting).
marie desjardins
A Beaver
> they're ALL size 6. Except the size 3's. Size 7 doesn't fit me, size 9
> (which I usually wear) doesn't fit, 11 - no, 13 -no, and they don't make
> them any bigger. It's the same problem -- they just assume that everybody
> has what they consider to be the "ideal" body (no hips, no rear end, no
> thighs, and VERY short) -- or if they don't, then they should squeeze them-
> selves into these jeans anyway (which lots of locals around here (Boston)
> do and look disgusting).
>
> marie desjardins
I am just now getting around to looking at the news and couldn't
keep my hand from hitting that ol' 'f' key.
Have you tried the boys department? No, I'm serious. I wear about
a size 9/10 in the ladies department, when buying skirts. I have
never cared at all about fashion and have tried to dress for comfort.
My son is 14 and still goes through pants like you wouldn't believe,
what with growing and just wearing them out. Since looking for
clothing for him at sales, I have discovered that a boys size 18
seems to fit me pretty well. Now, I still have the problem with the
waist being too big, if the hips fit, or the hips too small, if the
waist is right. However, 9 times out of 10, they are long enough and
the fit is better than in the ladies section. You can find the smaller
mens sizes there too. And I know that if you look in the right places,
you can get the designer stuff that way too. Just not the women's
designs.
Annadiana Beaver
A Beaver@Tektronix
"As our scene opens, we find Mrs. Wadny Doopa Doing the
supper dishes." .....The sound of glass breaking.....
"I HATE dishes...."--from "The Tounge that Licked Tuscon"
Julia Harper
clothes are made for "very short" women.
I'm 5' 1-1/4", (that's five one and a quarter)
and can't remember having ever bought a pair
of pants that didn't need the legs shortened.
Skirts, too, are usually too long on me.
--
Julia Harper
[ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh
Rea Simpson
I'm 4' 10" and I agree!!!!!
Rea Simpson
cherepov
>I am a 5'4" male and let me tell you how many fashions simply don't look good
>on short men. I have always wanted a waist-length ski jacket, but they make
>me look an extra 20 lbs. heavier (and on short folk, it is a lot). The same
>is true for a double breasted overcoat and too many other clothes to name.
Hm, I'm not a whole lot taller but it (ski jacket) looks good on me.
Or at least so I like to think.
Practical advice: try wearing it with Real Tight Pants.
The result is athletic macho look, causing envy in men,
lust in women, both lust and envy in gay men, unknown
emotions in lesbians, respect in other skiers regardless of
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, race, etc.
Mike Cherepov
P.S. Real Tight Pants is probably no answer for someone with
Real Big Butt. But then again...
c...@ima.uucp
9EI would say that women's clothes are made for heights of 5'4" - 5'5".DI happen to be 5'5" and have never had a problem with length, but my5sister, at 5'2" has had to shorten nearly everything.
Seth H Zirin
> > and can't remember having ever bought a pair
> > of pants that didn't need the legs shortened.
> >
I'm 6'1" and I disagree. Guess jeans (unisex) come in ONE length which is 3 or
4 inches too short for me. One of my female friends is 5'10" and has trouble
finding pants legs and shirt sleeves long enough to fit her.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Seth H Zirin
USmail: Megadata Corp. 35 Orville Dr., Bohemia, NY 11716
Phone: 516-589-6800 (M-F 9-5 EST)
UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4}!philabs!sbcs!megad!seth
Keeper of the News for megad