There are worse problems than being too tall for normal clothing manufacturers.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 5, 2007 10:57 AM | TrackBack | $raw=rawurlencode($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']); $technolink="http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/links.html?rank=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.janegalt.net$raw"; echo ("Technorati inbound links"); ?>A friend of mine is a bra-size 32C (100% natural), but none of the major manufacturers make a bra of that size. Yet a different problem, but all part of being outside the center of the bell curve.
Posted by: Dan on February 5, 2007 12:23 PMIt is hardly reasonable for those who are ~ 2 standard deviations from the norm (on the tall, gorgeous and stunning side) to expect "normal clothing manufacturers" to provide gorgeous and stunning clothing in tall sizes for the "altitudinally advantaged". Fortunately, the internet provides access to clothing and shoes for the "non-normal" among us, including tall, chubby seniors with long, skinny feet.
Posted by: Ed Reid on February 5, 2007 1:28 PMFor the Bra sufferer (I am one: a natural 34G) try Bravissimo.com. Also Nordstroms has started carrying bras by many of the same manufacturers as Bravissimo carries. Bravissimo has several items that are exclusives in clothing designed to fit, so ordering and customs charges from England are worth it if you really want something flattering to wear as well as just underwear and swimsuits.
Posted by: Debbie on February 5, 2007 3:20 PMWell, someone's gotta take the bait, right?
Being too tall for normal clothing manufacturers is a problem that cannot be corrected through diet and exercise.
I'm sufficiently compassionate not to be cruel to fat people just for kicks, but, really, if one is too heavy to wear ordinary clothes, perhaps s/he should consider correcting the behaviour that exacerbates the problem.
/awaits allegations of insnesitive fuckwittery
Posted by: Bob Dobalina on February 5, 2007 4:31 PMAnyone know if airplanes charge for two tickets if you are a certain weight or size? I've been next to some pretty big people that took up 1/3 to 1/2 of my seat. I wish they would have paid me for that portion of my fare for the pleasure of their company.
That said, they are people too and I can't imagine being told I was too fat and had to buy 2 tickets.
Posted by: s on February 5, 2007 5:54 PMs - I'll go one step further. I think there should be a discount airline that weighs you and your luggage and charges by the pound. I'm sure they could offer a lower fare, provided they could fill their planes.
Posted by: Ryan on February 5, 2007 6:52 PMRyan:
"I'm sure they could offer a lower fare, provided they could fill their planes."
That's a bit like me saying that if I followed a certain investment strategy, I'm sure I could be rich, provided I could also win the lottery.
The reason airlines are going bankrupt is:
1. They can't count on filling their planes
2. Their marginal cost situation has horrible granularity.
The cost of flying a jetliner empty is almost identical to the cost of flying one full. Surcharges for overweight passengers would primarily serve to alienate those passengers, rather than collect additional revenue. And the more empty seats a given flight has, the more likely it is that the airline is losing a bundle of money on it.
In order for it to work, you'd have to find a group of underweight passengers who so fervently hate fat people that they'd fly on your airline simply because there wouldn't be any fat people on the plane with them. The national population of such individuals is unlikely to be large enough for their business alone to support an entire airline.
Posted by: Matt on February 6, 2007 3:05 AMI would be all for a surcharge where the money was given to the poor sap who had to sit next to the fat guy.
I may just be bitter. I once had to fly from SF to Louisville between two really, really fat dudes. One had a talking watch, the other had a sweat disorder.
I prayed for a plane crash.
Posted by: Reagan Fan on February 6, 2007 9:46 AMThat said, they are people too and I can't imagine being told I was too fat and had to buy 2 tickets.
Some people may be more sensitive to their physical condition than others, but being told that you can only be accomodated if you purchase a first-class ticket is hardly the worst thing one could hear.
Posted by: anony-mouse on February 6, 2007 3:30 PMGotta love it. Myself, I wear Lane Bryant clothing anywhere from sz 18 to sz 24. I'm also 5'10" and require "tall", and most "tall" sizes aren't "tall" enough (at least not in my size). They style and price of most clothing that fits me makes me want to vomit on a regular basis. Oh yeah, and sz 10 shoes and a 40DDD bra. GAHHHHHHHHHH!
Posted by: Cristin on February 6, 2007 6:46 PMWhen I was in college (about 15 years ago), I interned at a short-lived publication that served as a marketing report for large-sized retailers and manufacturers. (Neither I nor the editor were large-sized.) In researching articles, I noticed a huge disconnect between what our large-sized sources said they wished to buy, and what the retailers we interviewed said sold well. A lot of the women wanted career clothes, other things that resembled modern fashions. But the retailers said the sales were from the ugly stereotypical stuff they supposedly didn't want, like muumuus ("floats"). I'm not sure why this was.
Posted by: Spungen on February 6, 2007 9:41 PMIt's even worse when you're 39" under the arms, but 42" under the breasts - and a B cup if that. Bras have to be made to measure, they don't fit. Size 12 skirts, size 16-18 tops.
And Pectus Carinatum (bottom ribs stick out).
Oh well, could be worse, but I've never been able to wear a bikini, or even a 1-piece.
Then again, many who are Intersexed like me have ot even worse. I should count my blessings.