Y'all didn't know I clean up well?

Mushanga said:

i can get mo'funky with tights anyway

lazycrockett said:

you don't think that worked?

Cinnie said:

Women have more issues with clothing for obvious reasons, but us men are not without any.

For me it's pants.
I have narrow hips and thighs. My pants always fall very low on my waist (below, even). No matter how I belt them. This is not so bad with jeans, when I wear a tee or untucked shirt, but with dress pants it makes them look strange, and makes my belly look like it sticks out (I don't really have a big belly).
I avoid wearing dress slacks with tucked button downs whenever possible.
[Edited 1/24/10 8:47am]

sammij said:

Oh yeah. And we've both got the thunderthighs to work 'em with!!

Mushanga said:

meow85 said:

No, men don't have as many fit issues as women (in general) - because they have far fewer curves and thus, fewer critical fit points.

Think about it. For most men, their clothes hang from their shoulders and their waists. Their hips and thighs are less of a problem because they don't have much in the way of curves there. Look at a man straight on sometime - his silhouette is likely to run in a straight line from his waist to his feet.

To be sure, a man with a big belly is going to have a problem getting a jacket that fits his shoulders well, while at the same time fitting around his waist. Similarly, if he has a big belly, the butt and legs of his pants are probably going to be loose. But pants can altered easily at the waist and most men's trousers have waistbands designed to be altered. And men's clothing is sold by actual measurements (waist and chest), rather than some arbitrary numbered size - as women's clothing is.

Women's clothing has far more critical fit points because there are far greater variations in women's shapes. Some women have slim hips and could conceivably buy pants the way men do - by waist measurement. But most have hip and thigh measurements that are at least as important to the fit of the clothing as the waist measurement. Getting the waist to hip ratio and the shape of the rise right is murder. Trust me - I've made any number of pairs of pants and I still haven't managed to get a perfect fit on my own body. You couldn't get me to make a pair of pants for someone else for all the gold in the ocean. It's a fool's errand.

It honestly doesn't matter whether a man or woman designs the clothing, because it isn't the designer (usually) who does the fitting. Getting the fit right is the work of a technical designer. Most companies have to make a choice about how their clothing will be shaped - are they going to fit curvier or less curvy women? Most try to walk a middle ground - which is why their pants end up fitting no one.

I finally found a brand of jeans that fits my bubble butt and comparatively smaller waist. Every time they come out with a new style, I buy a pair. I have enough that I could stop for awhile - but I'm afraid that if they ever go out of business, I'm screwed. So I'm trying to keep them in business single-handed.

Genesia said:

How perfectly logical and boring.

Cinnie said:

IMO half the people on What Not To Wear would look fine anyway wearing what they do if there weren't issues with proper fit.

You should try Spandex, it works for me

kpowers said:

I thought you were more of a rubber guy, Batsy.

meow85 said:

It's Bat Spandex

sammij said:

Sorry for cuting in The cut looks fab on her, the length really works without drowning her and the colour is divine against her skin.. However there's just alittle too much fabric in the sleeve area, I think it might have worked better if the sleeves were sheer..

she still looks fab tho

meow85 said:

Marilyn Monroe...so called most beautiful woman ever in Hollywood...was a size 14. Jean Harlow, Liz Taylor, Dorothy Dandridge, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Mae West....all of the sex symbols of hollywood past were curvy women not planks or slimjims. Even starlets of today....Halle, Scarlett, Penelope, Sandra and Jodi are not stick figures.


With that said....


Designers are making clothes for underfed teen girls or at least those women who resemble underfed teen girls.

Todays clothes are designed for the Olsen Twins, the Hilton Twits and all those debutants and high society nymphs that smoke too much and eat too little.

JOYJOY said:

i definitely agree about the sleeves! most certainly, but still a great gown for her

Womens' bodies vary quite a bit (so do mens' but women even more IMO). Isn't it pretty unlikely that mass produced clothes would fit you perfectly?

You need to become rich & get 'em custom made!

DesireeNevermind said:

Which, in 2010 actually translates to like a size 6.

Good old vanity sizing.

She is NOT comparable to the average size 14 woman now.

sammij said:

Also agree on the sleeves (too caped crusader, we'll leave the cape-wearing to kpowers).
I think it's a great color. I think she looks good also. My only critique would be that they could stand to give her a younger look.

DesireeNevermind said:

Oh, lord...not that old "Marilyn was a size 14" chestnut again.

Marilyn Monroe was not a 2010 size 14. In today's sizing, she was a 6 (give or take a size - her weight fluctuated quite a bit).

Joan Crawford and Bette Davis were tiny. Both were right around five feet tall. They may have looked curvaceous, but they were (in all likelihood) no bigger than a 2 or 4 in today's sizing. Mae West was probably a 10 (or thereabouts).

There has been rampant size inflation in ready-to-wear in the last 60 years. Don't believe me? Try sewing something from a pattern - the sizing of which has remained the same since the 40s. If you wear a 12 off the rack, don't even think you can fit a size 12 pattern. You'll to sew a 16 (at least).

id like to see a 2nd hand store fashion show .. thats me right now. i got a leather jacket for 15 n had a new zipper put on, a trench coat for 20 and two sweaters for 5 each this xmas .. nice score..

Genesia said:

To be honest, because I don't deal with sewing or dressmaking, I wouldn't know any of that.

sammij said:

I've been sewing for over 30 years and I work in the apparel industry.

JustErin said:

Have you seen "Some Like It Hot"? She was allegedly trying to diet during that film b/c she was getting called plump in the press. She was not slender but curvy and if you look at the other actresses in the film she was much heavier than they were.

In 2010, none of these damn dress sizes are real. What was a size 4 five years ago is now a size 6. Vanity sizing is what's going on today versus more realistic sizing 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. Couple that with many clothes being made overseas in countries where people are smaller and you have men and women, but mostly women, not being able to find their true size in everything from jeans to swimsuits.

johnart said:

Cinnie said:

RAWWWWWR :pawingatthescreen:

DesireeNevermind said:

Yes, I have seen Some Like It Hot. I have also seen The Seven Year Itch (in which Marilyn was even bigger), The Prince and the Showgirl, Bus Stop, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Niagara, Monkey Business, The Misfits, How to Marry a Millionaire, All About Eve, and There's No Business Like Show Business.

In other words, I've seen Marilyn at every size at which she appeared on film. I didn't say she wasn't curvy - I said she wasn't a size 14.

You basically repeated what I said - that there's been size inflation. Does the exact timeframe really matter? It has occurred at some point during the last 60 years, because patterns were standardized in the 40s. (They did it using the biggest database of female measurements ever assembled - culled from the records of women who served in the US armed forces during WWII.)

Genesia said:

Today's sizing is bullshit.

Marilyn Monroe was 5'5 and 145 pounds with a size 37 bust and 36 inch hips when she filmed SLIH. Even today that is a size 12 off the rack at best but for her back then....size 14.

Truthfully....sizing is all myth. People are not cookie cutter. You will have two women fit into a size 6 but it will look good on one and not the other. Women's clothes ought to be more like men's clothes and focus on measurements; bust size, hip size, waist size etc in stead of this overal size 6, 12, 16. What's worse is the whole small, medium, large bullshit. What woman is a small all over or a medium all over? SMH

DesireeNevermind said:

Again...no, it isn't. A woman with 36-inch hips would wear a size 2 or 4 in current sizing. A size 12 corresponds to 41-1/2" hips. (I just looked up the size charts for the company I work for - and our measurements are in line with those of other many other companies.)

Women's clothing does focus on measurements. How do you think any company manages to make consistently-sized clothing if they don't use measurements? The issue is shape, not size. You can take two women with identical measurements and put them in the same size from the same company - and the clothes will fit each woman differently. Why? Because even though their measurements may be the same, those two women are shaped differently.

People who think this is an easy problem to solve have no experience in patternmaking or clothing construction.

Genesia said:

Hence my pointing out my obvious cluelessness about it.

sammij said:

To be honest, most women are clueless about this stuff. I mean...even with my years of experience, I still haven't been able to make one perfect-fitting pair of pants.