Originally Posted by Wolf Goddess
I've always wished that sizing was regulated somehow - it would be nice to not have to try on everything I want to buy, since the sizes now are all just random numbers.
In essence the reason sizing standards are so difficult, is because women's bodies do not follow the standards. There is much more variation in women's bodies than would be feasible in sizing garments. Also different women like their clothes to fit differently, some prefer snugger and looser (and not only in general, but at different body areas).
Attempts to regulate and standardize women's clothing styles is largely a failed experiment. Here are two threads in which the history of women's sizing and the difficulties in standardizing sizing is discussed.
Vanity sizing where exactly?
Anyone else think "vanity" sizes are part of the problem? (semi-rant)
I think there are ways to improve the guesswork in sizing, but it would be much different than the original attempt made. There would have to be a lot more than six standard sizes (2 thru 12), and I'm not even talking about adding the plus sizes.
I like how Lane Bryant "Right Fit" jeans are sized, they have a color system (red, yellow, blue) to fit women with three main body types "straight, moderately curvy and curvy" in sizes 1 through 10 (these are not standard sizes, but plus sizes, I believe equivalent to misses sizes 14 through 34), in five lengths (very short, short, average, long, and very long)
So that means that the company makes 150 different sizes (many of the styles do not come on the the very short or very long so that would be reduced to 90 sizes).
If they would do this with standard sizes (2 through 12) also, that would mean up to 240 different sizes). And even so, many women would still not like the fit of the available sizes.