posted on May 9, 2001 09:06:52 PM
In terms of selling them, that is.
Does anyone have a URL for Size to Waist conversion for women's pants? I searched "Dockers" on ebay and came up with 3 pairs of size 16 Womens Dockers - with 3 different waist sizes listed. Isn't there some sort of standard?
[ edited by dawaford on May 9, 2001 09:07 PM ]
posted on May 9, 2001 09:19:42 PM
All clothing runs differently - even within the same brand and style. That's why many sellers measue everything so the buyer know what they are getting.
There is a standard for USA clothing, but most manufacturers don't adhere to it-or so it seems.
posted on May 9, 2001 09:25:52 PM
Here's a little secret I learned from the saleswomen at a Liz Claiborne store --
not all size 16's (or 8's or 10's) are created equal.
A woman buying a pair of pants should try on several pairs of the same style in the same size.
Manufacturers cut pants in several ways & label them the same size so they will fit women of different builds (all of whom will still be a 16). I'm 5'9" and a size 16 on me would be different than a size 16 on a 5'6" woman... or on a woman who is thicker in the waist and slimmer in the hips, etc.
posted on May 9, 2001 11:23:46 PM
If there is any elastic in the waist then you should also give the waist measurement with the elastic stretched and unstretched.
I think you must be a man, since ANY woman who has ever tried on clothes knows that there is absolutely no standardization whatsoever in sizing. Women want to fit into a smaller size, so the manufacturers keep making clothing bigger and bigger while keeping the same "size number" to satisfy our vanity.
I wish the day would come when women's clothing is sized by inches (like men's clothing), so we wouldn't have to try things on so doggone much!
posted on May 10, 2001 01:11:35 PMmcbrunnhilde: One of the essential differences between men and women is that men don't mind wearing a pair of jeans with "42 Inch Waist" boldly displayed on a little leather patch....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 10, 2001 02:06:22 PM
Yeah, Barry, size patches on women's clothes will happen when pigs fly!!
I just wish the entire culture of our world would change. Someone like John Goodman or Dennis Franz or Brian Dennehy can be admired by everyone for their acting skills and even be viewed as sex symbols (yes, I've seen that in a magazine or two), but get a woman with a few extra pounds on her and she is greatly looked down on as being "fat," regardless of her talent or abilities. For the most part, women accept overweight men, but men (and even other women) don't accept overweight women--and THAT's a sad commentary on who we are. I've always said I was born a couple of hundred years too late--I probably would have been hot stuff back than!
posted on May 10, 2001 02:46:06 PMmcbrunnhilde: "Someone like John Goodman or Dennis Franz or Brian Dennehy can be ... viewed as sex symbols"
Yes, because they have money and/or power. Whereas THE REST OF US poor fat slobs are just SOL when it comes to attracting beautiful women. Even if we DO own really hot sports cars [ah well, at least it's fun to drive....]
Seriously, that's yet another essential difference between the sexes. Somehow, women seem to be able to see beyond a man's outward appearance and find other attributes "sexy" [whether it's intelligence, sense of humor, power, or money]. With guys, though, either a woman is sexy or she isn't. Period. It doesn't matter how intelligent, talented, rich, or powerful she is -- it's all about looks. And it doesn't matter how much a guy protests that he is "really" not all that interested in looks, either. If he says that, he's either lying or blind, trust me.
The funny thing is that from a strictly biological perspective, it makes perfect sense for women to be attracted to men who can provide for them. But I'll be damned if I can figure out the biological imperative driving men toward tall, skinny, leggy women with huge breasts and pouty lips.
Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a member of the male persuasion. We're such pigs when it comes to women....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 10, 2001 03:44:22 PM
Barry, your analysis shows that you are truly a credit to your sex! To give guys a break, I'll have to say that I have never been a target of scorn because of my weight--but it may be that at almost 6 feet tall, I just intimidate the h*ll out of 'em! (Get me in a pair of high heels, and it's AMAZING how respectful people are to me!)
posted on May 10, 2001 04:28:53 PM
Another thing that will help is the measurement from the waist to the crotch of the pants. Supposedly petite pants are shorter in this area than non-petite pants. Hope this makes sense.
posted on May 10, 2001 09:49:09 PM
MUSICMAN:I think we both have read the right sign, but have gone into the wrong establishment.LOL! Come to think of it, I have bought some womens' pants and gotten into them. But I most definitely have never worn any...GO figure...sneaking out quietly.
