| Author | Post |
|---|
pris
New Member
|
Posted: 29 March 2008 03:38 am |
|
I was just reading a topic in the sucess stories about what to do w/ the before clothes. It got me thinking about all my "before I gained weight clothes" Before I had kids and gained "the baby fat" I had lots of beautiful things. I used to be quite fashionable and worked at upscale dept stores so having a great discount and getting first pick of the good stuff at the markdowns I had some really expensive classic pieces. I had some in my closet for 15 years. I also had gorgeous vintage dresses/jackets etc. I finally gave them up as I had also given up the idea ever being able to fit into them again.
I used to have a 23" waist. I was small. I faced the fact that Id NEVER be small again and that they were just taking up space and going to waste. Now that Ive lost the wieght I constantly think of some of the pieces that I could be wearing now. Things that if I wanted to buy again I can never afford. I did keep a few things that I do fit in again. I have these great motorcycle leather pants that I bought probably 29 years ago in a vintage clothes shop in laguna beach. I thought when the boys were younger they could use them as costumes since they were actually mens/boys pants. I fit into them now, just that I have brought myself to show them off. I kept a few little black dresses from the 1940s that I fit into again.
Also from loosing wieght I know for sure that sizing in clothes has definately changed. When I was in my 20s to before my sons(26) I used to wear a size 8, sometimes 6 in pants and skirts. Only when they were really upscale brands like the higher priced calvin klein or ann klein did I wear a size 4( these at the time were clothes that cost over 300 a piece, I of course paid less than half even half of the half)
Now adays, even with my measurements being an inch larger, and my waist now is 27, Im wearing clothes in the sizes of 0, or 2. Today I think they do this on purpose to make people feel bad about themselves. I know for sure that todays size0 is what a size 4 or 6 was. And if the clothes are really upscale( prada, gucci, dolce gabana) (in my dreams) they are even smaller sized. Why?
Just a thought.......Any one else regret getting rid of their before , before clothes?
|
suenos
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 29 March 2008 06:27 am |
|
| I never thought out this, but yea, I did have this period when I thought I was facing "the reality" that I would never fit into certain clothes again and got rid of them....there were a couple of really cute things that I wish I had back
|
Tratra
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 29 March 2008 12:41 pm |
|
| It's called vanity sizing. It's so the rich people who can afford those upscale brands get to think they're a size 0, when in reality they're actually a size 4/6.
|
zenobia
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 31 March 2008 03:22 am |
|
i'm just curious as to what defines a "size". case in point. i bought a pair of pants for work the other day in a size 3. i have not fit into 3s since i was 16. none of the other pants i own are 3 (i range anywhere from a 5-7)... these "3"s are baggy on me in the legs, the waist and the hips (only took one wearing form them to stretch).
so what defines a size? why can't it just be like men's a have inches. inches don't change. 27 inch waist can't be a 29 inch waist just because it isn't. i could never walk into a store, pull a pair of pants of the rack and take them home knowing that they will fit (unless it is of a specific brand that i am partial to... and even then, some might run a bit larger or smaller...)
it is just so freaking annoying!!! and what is with the "short/regular/long"s? can't they just run by inches as well?!!! ggggrrrrrrr... i am totally annoyed.
|
pris
New Member
|
Posted: 31 March 2008 05:33 am |
|
I AGREEE, it is so hard to just go in a buy a pair of pants. I have also always said why not waist size(inches) and lenght. Though I do usually get the short lenght. I hate buying pants and having to pay again to have them chopped off cause theyre soo long on me.
I guess that if you did all that logical stuff like waist size it would just be too truthful and it seems like everyone "lies" or likes to be lied to so they feel better. Like before I lost weight, I was always truthful about the numbers Id say to people yah I weigh any where from 145-150 and Id get the " no way" you dont look that heavy, yes I did cause that what I weighed. People that were taller and I KNOW were bigger and definately thicker boned would say they weighed 130 why? to make me feel bad?
Its like when I thought by asking someone who colored/highlighted their hair they would be flattered (i know id be) theyd get offended many times, and say "color?" I dont color my hair, its natural(yeah so whats with the roots and stripes of bleached hair)
PS. Zenobia, Been meaning to say since I got on these forums,I really like your little cartoon, its great.
|
Victor version 4.0
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 1 April 2008 01:46 pm |
|
zenobia wrote: i'm just curious as to what defines a "size". case in point. i bought a pair of pants for work the other day in a size 3. i have not fit into 3s since i was 16. none of the other pants i own are 3 (i range anywhere from a 5-7)... these "3"s are baggy on me in the legs, the waist and the hips (only took one wearing form them to stretch).
so what defines a size? why can't it just be like men's a have inches. inches don't change. 27 inch waist can't be a 29 inch waist just because it isn't. i could never walk into a store, pull a pair of pants of the rack and take them home knowing that they will fit (unless it is of a specific brand that i am partial to... and even then, some might run a bit larger or smaller...)
it is just so freaking annoying!!! and what is with the "short/regular/long"s? can't they just run by inches as well?!!! ggggrrrrrrr... i am totally annoyed.
It is a fact that the "More Costly" brands, sold at strores like Neimans, Nordstroms, Macys etc...are "vanity sized" meaning that you will often have to buy one or two sizes smaller at these strores than at "Wal-Mart".
The marketing thinking is that they "want" you to feel good about buying a $90 pair of pants, so why not add the"psycological" edge of putting size 7 on a pair of 9's? They wouldnt do this if it didn't work.
I have a couple of pairs of "Polo" trousers in a size 30" that fit quite well (not tight) and they are the same "size" as my "Wal-Mart" size 34s <shrug> go figgure!
V
|
deliaann
New Member
| Joined: | 10 June 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 32 |
|
Posted: 11 June 2008 08:22 pm |
|
| I have never understood why I had size 7 Express jeans that were looser than my 9s and 11s were from JCPenneys. Now I know (and don't I wish I still fit into them.)
|
Current time is 01:27 am | |
|
