Clothing Size Is Messed Up To The Max

That perfect-fitting dress you’re wearing might be labeled a size 4, but had you shopped in 1970, you’d be slipping into a size 10.

Step right up to the wild and wacky realm of vanity sizing, where the numbers on the tags magically shrink while your actual measurements seem to be training for a bodybuilding competition. It’s like clothing tags have become funhouse mirrors, reflecting a fit that’s more illusion than reality!

Now talk about some confusing bullshit.

So I have been doing some research on fashion history and here is some more messed up news for you.

Now get this: back in 1958, the tiniest women’s size was an 8, rocking measurements of a 31-inch bust, a 23.5-inch waist, and weighing in at a feather-light 98 pounds. Talk about a blast from the past!

This bullshit trend is extending beyond women’s fashion and now moving into men’s clothing, which has historically been sized using measurements instead of arbitrary numbers.

For instance, pants labeled as having a 34-inch waist may actually measure 36 or 37 inches now. Men who used to wear large shirts a decade ago are now fitting into mediums or even smalls, even if they've gained weight.

What the fuck is going on here. They think they are fooling us, but we know what's going down.

Your wardrobe may reflect this shift in sizing history. Tgat vintage dress from the 1960s labeled as size 12 could fit similarly to today’s size 4.

Likewise, your grandmother’s size 8 pants from the 1970s might struggle to zip up on your size 0 figure.

And you wonder why I hate on-line shopping for clothing