Friday, June 16, 2006

The Great Pants Pull of 2006 - Part Two

When we last left off, dear reader, I was going on about how women's clothing sizes have been horribly affected by vanity sizing. This makes size 12 the new 2 and pants for anorexic chicks unavailable off the catwalk.

This is a photo of me in the wedding photo pants. I can fit my hand crosswise into the front and still have a little wiggle room. This is the old "pants pull" that they use in infomercials showing weight loss. Yes, I know I'm wearing a different shirt, but this is The Doodlebug Jr. Ringer and I have to advertise my product.

So back to pants shopping. Dudes have it easy. They go by the waist and inseam measurements in inches. Easy enough to figure out. Just measure each and go to the store. There's no surprise when they go to buy pants. Sure, some pants are more flattering for some body types than others, but the pants usually fit the same at the waist and inseam. Why not have the same system for chicks? If you want low-rise pants, measure the low ab and inseam. Take those numbers into the mall and hunt for the pants of your dreams. Do the same thing if you want old-rise pants. Guys don't know what the numbers mean anyway. (Really, you don't.) So what if you have to go buy a pair of 31x28 low-rise pants. At least you know which racks to hit for your clothes so you don't have to drag pants of the same style but three different sizes into the dressing room in hopes that one fits right. If we're all completely honest about it, it doesn't matter anyway. This vanity sizing is grade-A bullcrap (and truthfully, it's fooling women into believing that the crap they're eating isn't causing any change in their bodies).

I'll go first. Low-rise 29x28. Next?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home