Asymmetrical Information

Ooh, ooh, tell 'em about the nice sleeves that puff up just before the cuffs---so delicate and lady-like, especially if a) they terminate three inches below the elbow and b) you can't button them because you actually have a muscle there, so they flap around in a very elegant manner.

Buttoned or not, they do encourage demure movements in that if you tried to stretch you arm out, the sleeve would rip out at the shoulder. Fun!

I had to wear a purple dress, empire waist, with a very low neckline. Plus, it was very tight across the chest so everything was pushed up and out. I don't have much but it was definitely on display. I have several pictures from the wedding where the family has commented on my attributes.

I'm 5'2" and long and lean is definitely the way to go. Poofy skirts make you look shorter by creating the look of weight on the bottom. A vertical line at the waist, bad, bad! Cuts your body in two, and once again, makes you look shorter.

Fortunately, most of my friends have eloped.

Is it true that bridesmaids are expected to shell out their own cash for their dresses, which, I take it, are often ugly and very expensive?

Tuxes always seem to fit and flatter. And, at last observation, men still do not struggle with any sort of monthly physiological cycle. We've got it so damned easy: I apologize.

Amitava: Yes. It is true. Some brides are not so cruel as others though. I had all of my bridesmaids give me input on the dresses, and tried to keep them as cheap as possible:)

And Jane - not that it helps...but even I, at 5'8", have clothes issues. I have very gangly arms and legs, and so it's hard to find pants that are long enough and near impossible to find long sleeved shirts that don't look funny. And don't even get me started on suits.

You have my complete sympathy.

People think it must be so nice to be tall, but as Megan points out, it's often a pain in the neck (and literally, at that). As a 6'4" teen-ager, my parents used to use me as a criterion by which they would decide whether or not to buy a car: can Paul sit in the rear seat? If not, no purchase.

Having done the traveling consulting thing, which often involved sitting on a plane from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C. I can also say that it's no fun being that tall when you're in anything less than first class.

And while we men don't have it as hard as women do in the clothing department, to this day I have blue jeans sent to me from a single store in Indiana because that store stocks literally every size that Levi Strauss makes, including one that fits me. And no, I can't shop at "Big and Tall" stores because such stores invariably presume that if you're "tall" you must also be "big."

At this juncture, I'd be thrilled to have a minimum of 2" carved off. Seriously.

Heh --

The absolute WORST is when you pay for one of these abominations, and the wedding is canceled the day before the blasted event.

You are now stuck with a crappy dress that you paid a hundred bucks for that you never even wore once.

This just happened to my wife. It sucks. TWICE!
J

I've never understood women's dress sizes: how can a three-dimensional object be modeled with a single dimension? What do the numbers mean, anyway?

Jane and I have actually had the Bridesmaid dress discussion, but I wanted to share with all y'all, the story of my friend "Ann" (okay, that's her real name...just try and find out who she is). This is just to show you that us short people have problems with bridesmaids dresses too.

Ann is 4'11" and wears a DD cup. She is very short and very curvy and probably weighs about 125. All in her boobs. This is the dress her best friend made her wear.

Starting from the bottom, the whole dress was in a shinny blue fabric, the skirt came in right below the knee, it was tight and flared out. The skirt then loosely followed the line of the hips, where the drop waist was placed, going up the torso to little capped sleeves.

This would have been bad enough except that the dress came with a matching jacket. The same material was on the body of the jacket, but the sleeves were made of blue see-through lace. The jacket contained epaulets (sp?) with every stupid silly sewing notion you could think of (sparkly sequins, flowers, lace and fringe) and finally the jacket tied below the hip with a big bow in the front.

About six months after the wedding the bride discovered she had a slow growing brain tumor. She was operated on and is fine now, but divorced an apologetic none the less.

It was the only possible excuse.

jimbo -- it's very simple.

0 = Anorexics and children.
2 = Ballet Dancers and children
4 = Short fashion models and children
6 = 5'5", long legs, 34b/c cup. Flat stomach, no hips, theighs the size of most people's wrists.
8 = Same as siz six but with hips. Slightly bigger bust line and waist.
10 = 5'7"
12 = Pudgy
14 = chunky and 5'9"
16 = Now we're in jumbo sizes and that's a whole different story.

So what do the sizes mean...we don't know either.

uh...um...well...uh...ehem...um...are there pictures?

Even without pictures, Kate has kindly provided a convenient way to judge the ideal date.

Thanks!

I beg your pardon, but I'm on the line between a 10 and a 12, depending on which designer (I won't get into the ones who have designated me, for whatever reason, as an eight, because they're clearly on crack). And I am not pudgy.

Jane, dear, you're the exception, as usual. I've never known a 12 that wasn't.

I find Kate's summary quite accurate, if brutal. And jumbo sizes really are another story. For one thing, they're mostly designed for women Jane's height. Designers apparently think your arms and legs grow longer as you gain weight.

I'll join in the bashing of designers who ignore the ends of the bell-curve. Bad enough that I'm 6'3", but I'm very broad across the shoulders. So much so that if I'm sitting down, or if there's nothing nearby to provide scale, I don't look like I'm that tall. (As an ex-girlfriend described meeting me the first time, "And then you stood up. And up. And up...) Sleaves always ride up becase no one makes the shoulders wide enough. Another annoyance is that I used to weightlift & do lots of hiking in the mountains out west, and still usually walk when possible. Big thigh muscles aren't allowed for by jean designers. I always have to go a size larger than my waist calls for.

You know, Cybrludite, you just have to keep trying until you find a good line of clothing. At a "you-look-sick-go-eat" stage of health, I have a 16.5 neck. Upshot? I buy shirts to fit my neck and arms, and inevitably end up wearing something designed for someone who outweighs me by a good 30 lbs. I'm still looking for someone that produces something I like that fits. ("Athletic-cut" usually works, although I don't really taper like an athlete - I'm just not as fat as my neck suggests.)

Of course, you ladies still have never explained why odd-numbered sizes aren't anything like the midpoint between the two even sizes on either side of them.

Finally, for J. Fielek: if it only cost you $100, what did you expect? Don't you know that designers have hit upon the "don't make anything nice cost less than $250" idea?

Kate, that is hilarious.

Also very true, except that for some reason that I will never understand, when it comes to bridal gowns and bridesmaid dresses, you need to add 2 or 3 sizes to what you normally wear. Like we really need to feel 3 sizes bigger at such times.

Jane, I don't think Kate meant you are pudgy, just that the clothes that come closest to fitting you are designed for a pudgy (because much shorter) gal.

"14 = chunky and 5'9" " That's me, minus 1" height (although I'm working my way back to a pudgy 12). My sister, whom I'll call "Stick-wench," is a size 6 or 8, same height as me.

Stick-wench and I once had to wear forest green heavy glossy satin dresses with the indescribably puffy sleeves and a ridiculously over-gathered skirts (and big bows on butts, of course) to a friend's wedding. Stick-wench looked chunky and 5'9" in that thing. I looked like a green version of what happened to Violet Beauregarde in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

As a result, Stick-wench and I were both much, much kinder to our bridesmaids. At least we think so. :)

Devilbunny -- Odd numbered sizes are Juniors. Clothes designed for a more girlish, less womanly, figure (i.e., not much in the way of hips or breasts). Being designed mainly for teenagers, Juniors are also the more trendy clothes (compared with the even-numbered, or Misses).

Generally, the odd-numbered size corresponds with the next bigger even-numbered size. A woman wearing an 8 usually can wear a 7; a 16 can wear 15. However, that varies depending on how womanly a figure she has. If she is highly curvy, it doesn't work. She'll need to go bigger on the Junior sizes.

More than you wanted to know, I imagine.

I'm 6'3" but wear 32" 32" pants (which is the most average size pants for men). So I am all upper body. Therefore I can't shirts long enough for more torso unless they are made for very large people. I was happier when the poofy look in male shirts was in.

Is it just me, or is there an abnormally high number of tall people in the blogosphere? I'm 6'2", and I'm usually the tallest in the room - but I seem to be bleow average around here...

I'm 6'3", to support your point. Jane and I sum 149 inches of blogging.

Hmm. I'm 6-1-1/2 and seem not to have trouble finding clothes, or automobiles for that matter, than fit.

Having been dragged along asked to accompany several girlfriends shopping, I have concluded that female clothing sizes are just insipid. Men's sizes are easy--they're by inches and the necessary dimensions are covered. Unless it's a sport shirt, where I sometimes need an XL and sometimes a L, I don't even have to try stuff on. The stupid, "petite," "junior," "misses," and "women's" sizes along with the meaningless size designators which don't seem to account for height are just bizarre.

And jumbo sizes really are another story. For one thing, they're mostly designed for women Jane's height.

Like hell they are. I'm two inches shorter than Jane and the fashion for cropped pants and 3/4-length sleeves is... well, let's say it's a lucky coincidence that when people see that my sleeves and pant legs are three inches too short, they might think it's on purpose.

Men should not even try to understand women's clothing sizing. It makes no sense, and trying to make it make sense will make you crazy.

Listen, I don't want to hear any guys complaining, because until a few years ago, the woman's inseam topped out at 31 inches in a size 14.

Hip slung pants? I started that trend -- in 1987.

Ditto cropped pants and highwaters.

Others may roll up their sleeves for proletarian chic -- I do it to conceal the fact that my arms are protruding a good 2-4 inches from the bottom of the sleeve.

Plus all the clothing designers assume that the reason I'm wearing that size ten or twelve is that I'm carrying twenty pounds I don't need. Everything fits too soon one way, too late the other.

It's no good buying mens clothes because while I am somewhat willowy, I do curve. If women's clothes make me look like I just had a growth spurt, men's make me look like I just lost 100 pounds.

I mean, I sympathize with you guys. But at least you can buy something with a 34 inch inseam and a waist that doesn't flap madlly when you walk.

Jeanne, my mother (5'0", size 22-ish) has complained for years that everything her size around has orangutang arms. And it's true. She tries things on and they hang four inches past the tips of her fingers.

Jane, you know I certainly didn't mean to insult you. I should have put 5'9" OR pudgy for size 12. Given that when I'm at my higher weight I go into a 12 for pants and I'm a foot shorter than you...well let's just say I should not even have the option of borrowing your cloths. Ever.

The real problem with women's clothing is that we have so many more things you have to measure. Men don't (hopefully) have hips. Most men I know have trouble with shirts, but slacks are fairly easy, since it's only two measurements. Women have four. It's not cost effective to have separate inseem, hip, waist and thiegh measurements, so we get short-changed with "10" or "12".

I choose to look at it as perhaps the one negative to go with all of the possitives of being a woman.

12 = Pudgy
14 = chunky and 5'9"
16 = Now we're in jumbo sizes and that's a whole different story.

Here's a random factoid: size 12 is considered "W". Yes, those Jumbo sizes actually start at 12. I never understood THAT logic.

And yeah, I can attest to those weird Jumbo sizes not fitting well on short people. Being 5'2" and anywhere from 16-22 in dresses (yes, I have dresses in each size and scarily, they all fit) it's hard as hell finding one with arm-holes that aren't as large as dinner plates. With those three dresses I got very, very lucky; what normally happens is that the dress will fit fine until I raise my arms. Then, the entire side of my body is exposed fot he world to see.

That's the price you pay for having enviable chest measurements. ;-)

Devilbunny --

It's teh principle. We paid a hundred bucks for a piece of crap we have neither used, nor can we return.

And it's unusuable outside of the original context, because whatever wedding Jess happens to end up in for other friends and family, the bride will invariably choose a new form of ugliness to degrade her bridesmaids with, and then we'll have two ugly dresses...

Oh well...

J

Can someone help me convert all this into metric?

Comments are Closed.