vanity sizing.

the fact that sizing has changed cannot be challenged: i wore 27-28" jeans when i was at my thinnest at 48kg (106lbs) in 2001, i go for 26-27" now that i'm a healthy(?) 56kg (124lbs). i used to be a US6, but now the older (and definitely not thinner) me needs a US0 or US2. nevertheless, this particular rant is not created by american brands such as gap which are known for catering to the whims of the world's fattest people, but by zara, the spanish high-street brand that has held a special place in my heart partially because of their predictable sizing. i still buy their tops in a medium because of my height, but require an extra small for dresses and pants. if they enlarge their sizes, i will need a seamstress which means bye-bye for me.

we all know that the claim that marilyn monroe was a size 12 is both true and untrue: she was a 12 of her time and probably about a 4 now. vanity sizing is a phenomenon that's been talked about in the press for years now. it is called "vanity sizing" because the favorite explanation given is that women want to feel thinner and a smaller number on the tag will convince them that they've gone down a size no matter what the reality. if made to choose between two garments, they'll go for the one with the smaller size rather than the one they like better initially. hence, women seem to be vain and stupid... and believe in xray-vision (which goes with stupid, i guess). some might deserve the stigma of vanity and fluff-headedness, since i do recall a girl from my high school who refused to buy anything bigger than size 8... i'm sure she's grown up by now.

there are other plausible explanations for the variety in sizing and why standardized charts, such as EN 13402, could create problems for manufacturers. for example, it could be argued that different demographics (in addition to men and women, that is) require different sizing charts, and stores that cater for construction workers and those that cater for ballerinas should use entirely different standards, i.e. one cannot expect to be a medium at both stores. then again, this argument is faulty, since there is no reason why the minute tutus and hulk-sized overalls should be available in all sizes: ballerinas could remain sizes xxs-m and construction workers can start from medium and run all the way to 5xl, if needed. right? my point is that rather than basing sizing on demographics, a standard sizing chart works partially for all -- even those who are small for a construction worker or huge for a ballerina. no-one in this world requires that a clothing manufacturer produces flannel shirts in a size xs.

in any case, my rant is not based on the fact that when i go to a new store, i do not automatically know my size. i also kinda get the idea that if i'm looking for a ballet leotard, i may need to start at a large rather than small. i'd be ecstatic if i did more-or-less know my size, since it would save me the hassle of dragging several identical garments into the dressing room and, moreover, would prolly mean i'd try stuff on more frequently in stores i don't normally shop at. that said, my complaint is that i have to guess my size at stores i've shopped in for years. since even designer brands aren't immune to vanity sizing, i cannot trust online shopping as i used to.

am i the only one who does not give a rat's bum about the number on the label but would really, thank you very much, like to be able to go, pick a consistent size, try it on for fit and color, decide whether the style was right for my body shape and buy it, rather than asking for several sizes in each garment, twitching like an ostrich trying on different sizes in the first style, getting frustrated, and eventually storming out of the store without buying anything?

must it be this hard?