Thanks for your answer. It truly was an honest question- not meant to sound snarky at all.

I guess in my mind, since I've never been a S or XS before, it wasn't immediately clear to my brain that when sizes go up the #chart, others go down, totally knocking some off the racks all together. I can see how that would be frustrating for those who desire to be at a lower goal weight/size.

I'm a 29 year old soccer mom, on a military budget, but thanks .

Edit- Point being, I'm hoping I can still shop at Target!

grrr sorry ... i totally did not mean to diss your ( or anyones preferance of stores )

i guess im in such a hurry to get out of those stores i assumed evreyone else is ...

ive always prefered to shop in stores that kept the sizes together you know? like just one womens section no plus sizes or anything just standard size 2- 20 ..... so i wouldent feel like i shopped in the plus size section .... even when i shop at stores like charolette russe ( i happen to prefer them to forever 21 because they have most styles available in a XL ) i always secretly cant wait to shop at stores that have a maximum size of like a size 7/8 .... they seem to have so much more variety and color choice and fun unique things ... to me ( and it would appeal to me .... your talking to someone who attempted to dye a rainbow in to her hair ... no im not a lesbien i just like it lol )

i assumed evreyone else felt the same way i totaly did not mean to diss target though just fyi and if i did im SO sorry !

Scarily in my experience Target is among the least dramatic with the vanity sizing, at least with the junior section. I haven't been able to fit into any of it for a while, but my roommate and I were there the other day, and she bought a size 13/14 without trying it on because she usually wears a 10 or 12 and they looked small, but she couldn't even button them. She had to get a 15/16, and even those are tight.

Old Navy seems to be the worst from what I've seen. They run huge.

LOL this!!

I joked around a couple of months ago that it would be totally funny if I had the opposite problem—that I couldn't find clothes because I was too small vs too large.

Yeah well it's happening.

Ah well. I'm short enough to shop in the kid's department at least.

Val, you made me totally think about this; I want to shed another 25 pounds, maybe even 30. That would put me in 120 pound range. -- I have lost 20 so far.... So at 120 pounds and age 45 I will be left with limited options. The teenager stores will be out of the question, because I simply don't want to look ridiculous at the age of 45

Kinda summarizes our society; we are almost expected to be heavy when approaching middle age.

My problem with vanity sizing is only that it makes it SO hard to shop for clothing and know what you're getting. Consistency from store to store would be nice! Especially since I'm so tall (and no, I don't agree with whoever posted before that 5'6" or 5'7" is "very tall" ) that I really can only find pants that are an appropriate length by ordering online. My tactic has to be ordering several sizes that I think might fit and then returning whatever doesn't work. Total PITA.

Where vanity sizing actually works out for me is that, again due to my height, I will never ever ever be so small that I can't find clothes small enough. Just not going to happen. The very smallest I can even imagine fitting into someday if I lost way below my goal would be an 8. If we were still using traditional sizes, I'd be relegated to plus size stores for the rest of my life, even well into the healthy weight range.

Clothing sizes are EXTREMELY difficult to deal with. I've studied this some and because women's bodies vary so much even just listing measurements like Bust/Waist/Height are extemely deceptive.

For instance, how would you pick the measurements for a dress like this?

It's fitted at both the underbust AND the waist. That means you need to have two measurements that are fitted to a women's body. However, in my underbust survey I found that for women with the same waist measurement could vary up to 9" in their underbust!!!! That's a huge difference, so there's no way to accurately size a dress that's going to include everyone. If a women has a larger underbust than waist she might have to size up whereas a women with a smaller underbust may have to size down. So even though they have the same waist measurement they could look at a size chart and think WTF? This is completely wrong!

Another example is with pants. Someone posted about having a size 10 in the 120's. Sure, why not? If you have a very nipped in waist with wide hips it's possible. My torso is the complete opposite (very straight up and down) so I actually have to size down about 3 sizes compared to what size charts tell me because the differential between my waist and high hip- where pants actually sit on you- is only about 2-3" whereas manufacturers assume that it's 5-6". That being said I know women who have a 9-12" differential and they definitely need to size up. To see more look here: http://braslessinbrasil.blogspot.com...ts-sizing.html

Now, as to the question of vanity sizing. It's a hard one. I'm getting to be on the smaller end of the spectrum. As is, I wear the smallest band of bras offered (28) and in many stores I'm a small (in terms of pants I'm a 4). However, I'm still 5lbs overweight and back at my lowest in high school (I weighed 20lbs less than I do now) I wore a size 8, never once a 6. Clearly vanity sizing is out there.

Personally, I'd prefer companies to list just the measurements that are relevant to that particular piece of clothing. It would take some brains on the consumer's behalf (and a measuring tape) but it would save a lot of $$ on returns from both ends. I'd love it if stores would offer to measure you for free, have a database of their clothes on hand and point out what might work for you.

For instance, an empire waisted dress vs. a dropped waist dress have very different needs in terms of measurements. So why bother with listing a waist measurement because neither one would be very accurate?

Now, the sizing out women issue is real, though, and is one that needs to be dealt with. I know of some companies that still have a larger selection for smaller women:
Pinup Girl
Collectif
BiuBiu

and what's great about Pinup girl, for instance, is that they list the individual measurements on each item. BiuBiu you can actually show by your bust size (which varies per size) AND they have different models showing each item of clothing.

That's really the way to go, especially as online shopping becomes more and more prevalent.

In general, I find cheaper stores (meaning less expensive) are more likely to vanity size. Target, Old Navy, etc. seem to do it more often than places like Ann Taylor. I am not sure why this is, although it might have something to do with the manufacturers they choose.

Actually, though, I find the CUT of clothing to be more frustrating than the size number. Jeans that dig in my belly are too loose in the thigh/rear. Dresses that fit my waist are too snug in the boobs.

Finding clothing that fits well and looks good is a pain, vanity sizing or not!

I remember in high school back in 1987 (yes old!) I was 145 and wore a 14/16. I had a terrible time because those weren't even sold in normal stores.

I'm pretty sure yeah, you'd have to weigh something like 100 lbs to fit into a 4 or 2.

I'm going to my mother's house in the summer, and I'm planning to find those old 14 jordache jeans (omg!) I had and bring them home with me just to compare them with what I have.

I wish women's would work just like men's sizes.
.

Well, I'm currently about 107 lbs, 5'0" (total shortie). I ALWAYS have to get pants hemmed, even "short" or "petite" length, because my legs are practically stubs.

I wear S shirts from Old Navy if I want them to fit, but I have a decent rack. Old Navy size 4 jeans fall off me, size 2 are too tight at the waist but too big in the butt.

Most clothing just varies so dramatically that it's just impossible to go by "sizes," I think.

But for shorties who are small... yeah, there are options in regular "cheap" stores. I find Juniors clothing to fit me the best (except in length and in the bust), mostly because they're cut for girls with smaller bootys.

I don't care what the number on it is - I just wish they'd make them the same size from brand-to-brand! It's really obnoxious when a size 14 in something is bigger than a size 18 in something else. I makes shopping annoying because you then have to try on 2-3 pairs of the same pants to find which size fits (unless it's obvious from holding it up), which means more trips back and forth to the dressing rooms, etc.

the reason on this as were learning in school ( I am in school for design )
is that stores such as target walmart or old navy are targeted towards your evreyday woman .... women who are not extremely fashion foward /active on the go type women .... the kind that dont want to fuss with their garments and these are the "average" cuts to fit such a person

stores like anne taylor , calvin klien, micheal khors etc is catered to a more fussy fashion foward crowd who considers themself more couture and haute couture is to be slim ... the slimmer the better a lot of high fashion people say or feel that fashion is for the slim ( i disagree fashion is for anyone who is willing to spend a ridiculous amount of money .... if the consumers are fat i dont see why designers arent making the clothes bigger ..... thats over 30% of the market that they are missing out on .... id want in on that !! )





and as per the other poster i guess i just thought 5'6 is tall because im my tallest friend ... i dont really see many other girls my height , even my mother is only 4'9 idk what cloud i fell out of lol

This is what I think....

Men have it so simple...even a beer gut they measure across their hipbones and wear jeans under their beer belly.

Us women we wear pants higher, let's say just about or around our belly button.

Hips may measure 40" waist may measure 30, but that is not the measurement around hips nor belly button. Why can't us be measure based on belly button as a waist measure?

1) I don't wear my pants on my waist...hehe...that would mean 80's style!! I wear my pants at belly button level or below...why can't we go by those measurements??? Waist maybe 30 but belly button may measure 35. Why is the fashion industry against women???

2) Why do they say 30" when they actually mean 35'?

We must be about the same age. I posted earlier about how excited I was when I could find a size 12 at The Limited - I was 5'7" and 145 pounds (HUGE among my classmates, there was usually ONE fat kid in your class and I was it, at 145 pounds) - and I had to suck in to get into that 12. I remember finding a pair of Guess jeans in a size 12 on sale and my mom was like, never gonna happen, you have never in your life been a size 12! And 12 was two sizes into the "fat sizes" back then (with ten being the first and 8 being dangerously on the border).

I can remember being FINALLY a comfortable size 12 (I must've had flu or something) and trying on a vintage dress in a size 12 and it wasn't even CLOSE to fitting - the dress was probably from the 50s. Vanity sizing is nothing new.

As it happens, I went shopping with my husband yesterday - for pants. They're doing it for men, too! He tried on probably ten pairs of pants, all the same waist/length and the fit was all over the place and none of them were his actual waist size (measured before he went). GUYS PANTS which are measured BY INCHES are totally lying about the inches, now.

I personally just don't care. Sizes are just numbers. If they creep one way or the other, who cares. So even a fat person can be happy about a size 12? I don't need to take that away from someone to feel better about myself. I just wish there was some standardization so I could more easily pick out my size when shopping (especially online!!!) and not have to take in 15 pairs of pants.