Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sizing chaos

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#411

Post by munificent »

sleazebreeze wrote: post #136
munificent wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The blame is 100% on the individuals making their own health decisions. If you put a pile of junk food on the floor, your pet will eat it until they make themselves sick. We are smarter than many animals and have more discipline. But we are still animals and do not have unlimited executive function. The people who architect the environment of incentives that surround us bear some amount of responsibility for the be…

You can't control the incentives, you can only control your reactions to those incentives.

We can control the incentives!

The idea that we should completely cede the environment and public space to corporations and give them total autonomy over the incentives that surround us is crazy.

Re: Sizing chaos

#412

Post by necovek »

abustamam wrote: post #395
dandellion wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I imagine for shorter men, it's the inverse but equally bad. Not really, as a quite short guy, many shops will offer me to have the clothes fitted, and if not it's pretty trivial to fit them myself. Maybe on the most extreme end of short it's more of an issue, but in general I suspect shortening pants and shirts is signficantly easier than lengthening them.

I'm a 5'5", 110lbs man. I shop at the teens section and get larges. I may not get the trendiest looks, but I get cheaper clothes that fits and looks good on me! I also tried Stitch Fix, they had a surprising amount of stuff that could fit me (both fashionably and size wise), albeit not as cheap as kids' clothes.

Thanks both for the perspective: yeah, even if simply scaled down proportionally, you are left with too long garments that you can fold/shorten, so a much better situation than tall men who can end up looking like cartoon caricatures if dressed with widely available garments.

And don't get me wrong, tall girls (my sister is 6'1") have it even worse.

Re: Sizing chaos

#413

Post by mixmastamyk »

stackghost wrote: post #244
mixmastamyk wrote: post #243

So these sizes (kid, teen, adult) are kind of ridiculous on their own, and combined with the different international systems even more. If you look at the tongue of a pair of a pair of sneakers for example, sometimes there will be four different numbers for international markets. I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind.

>I wish they simply measured clothing in centimeters, and all the complexity could be left behind. Funny you should mention shoes, because this is exactly what european shoe sizes are. It's really just a case of, yet again, Americans stick with an ass-backwards system (inches/pounds/feet, fahrenheit, etc.) when the rest of the world has settled on something much more logical and reasonable.

Not really, Wikipedia says it is 2/3 cm +/- 2. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Re: Sizing chaos

#414

Post by starkparker »

WarmWash wrote: post #35
socalgal2 wrote: post #25

This feels almost like a made up issue - like, "we want to considered victims so lets make up something to whine about" A few concrete issues: (1) they complain there are no international standards - And? Why should Japan, who's average size be much smaller than the USA be required to use USA standards? Their population doesn't need to care about people outside of Japan. You could say they should relabel the clothing…

Its like the pockets complaints. Women desperately want pants with pockets, but pockets throw off the aesthetic, so they don't sell well.

There's a Pudding piece on that, too: https://pudding.cool/2018/08/pockets/

Re: Sizing chaos

#415

Post by genewitch »

Freak_NL wrote: post #355
echelon wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only". This is how many brands originally blow up and grow famous. Especially in Asia. You make clothing in sizes only extremely slim people can wear. This is an extremely popular brand that specifically does this, and it's hardly the only one: https://en.wikiped…

Lululemon famously had that 'incident' where they flat out stated their brand just wasn't suitable for fat people. Given their brand identity this makes complete sense, whilst also excluding a large group of people. Expect more of this type of edgy marketing — it is in line with the zeitgeist (consider that eugenic jeans ad).

this comment did it for me today on HN.

That commercial could have been any attractive woman without changing the tone or meaning. it just drives some people crazy that a subset of humans "controls" like half the land on earth but comprises only 7% of the population, therefore everything about or having to do with that subset or the individuals therein is automatically considered "bad."

There were commercials that had jingles "bust a nut, bust a nut, just open up a can and bust a nut. you can do it in the bathroom, you can do it in the kitchen, you can do it with your best friend [...]" nearly 30 years ago. Commercials are generally in poor taste, but some people read way too much into it.

Re: Sizing chaos

#416

Post by jcims »

harrall wrote: post #179
jcims wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if understanding a particular brand's sizing drives up repeat purchases.

Yes but it’s multiple dimensions other than just waistline. e.g Some brands make boxier shirts and others use longer cuts. Because “my style” prefers one over the other, I know when I buy from a certain brand so it’s going to fit on me better. If if waistlines were standardized it wouldn’t really account for all the other measurements.

It's a great point that I think the article also touches on. Bodies are of many shapes, so the sizing question is as much about, possibly more about, shape as it is mapping any particular dimension to a scale.

Re: Sizing chaos

#417

Post by webnrrd2k »

pprotas wrote: post #313
coldtea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands? Because - in reality it's not much of a problem. Billions of women manage to buy and wear clothes just fine. Some might fit slightly better or worse, but unless you have very special body shape (and even extreme th…

Women in my life often voice their frustration with badly fitting bras or pants. In reality, it really is a problem, but it's a problem everyone just accepts.

It's one of those "if we put a man on the moon, why can't we solve this damn thing" kind of problems.

Throughout my life I've had various girlfriends complain about poorly-fitting bras, especially ones with under-wires that bite or break. It really seems like it should be a solved problem, but I kinda don't think it is.

Re: Sizing chaos

#418

Post by anthomtb »

scherlock wrote: post #408
npilk wrote: post #407

The opposite issue exists in men's clothing - it seems to be harder to find clothes that fit shorter/smaller men. "Medium" sizes tend to be quite large. I made a page about this myself - Model is 6'2" Wearing Size Medium - https://pilk.website/2/model-is-6-2-wearing-size-medium

Don't get me started on torso lengths! I'm 5'11 but wear a 30" inseam pants. My torso is long, so most shirts are too short for me. I'm not overweight, I'm 160 lbs, so finding a shirt that actually fits me is very difficult. If it's long enough, its too wide. If its the right width, it's too short.

I have the exact same problem. 6'0 (183.5 cm) height, 160lbs (72kgs), and a long torso. Mediums and even smalls are ideal for my shoulders and chest but it's a crapshoot if they will keep my belly button covered through a normal range of motion. I don't want to bare it and can't imagine anyone wants to see it.

Tentrees, Fox and Prana are the brands I've found that consistently fit my upper body.

Re: Sizing chaos

#419

Post by tristor »

fishtoaster wrote: post #14

This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…

Revealed preference vs stated preference answers the question of why women's clothing generally lacks pockets. Women prioritize aesthetics over utility when shopping. Clothing follows trends more than most things, though, which is why this is changing as younger generations prefer more casual and functional clothing.

Re: Sizing chaos

#420

Post by adrian_b »

Rendello wrote: post #103
dehue wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience with womens clothing having pockets does not mean they are very practical for phones. Phones are heavy and they can drag pants or skirt/dress down if they are stretchier or don't have a tight waistband which is most of them. If the pocket goes too far down or is too loose or too big the phone ends up too far down and jiggles around which is quite annoying and uncomfortable. Or in items like jeans whe…

Even as a guy who wears pretty loose straight-cut jeans, having stuff in my pockets can look and feel weird. Especially my AirPods case. In jeans with slightly stretchy denim, the location of my phone is permanently etched into my jeans. I'd be a pickpocket's dream. When I had the unfortunate inclination to wear tight pants, anything in the pockets looked and felt quite bad.

Me too.

I use only the pockets of my jacket or vest, if I wear one. If it is warm and I have no jacket or vest, I use belt holsters or bags, never the trouser pockets.

Post reply on HN