Liar Liar Pants on Fire

[jamesq]

My new pants aren't precisely on fire, but they are lying bastards.

I thought "it's time to see if I've dropped a pants size", so when I was at Costco today (I saw you canadianknight, but you were busy shilling the super-duper memberships, so I didn't want to interrupt you) I picked up a pair of 34x34 Calvin Klein jeans.

I just tried them on and the damn things fit perfectly. How is that a bad thing? Well they fit exactly as well as the 36x34 jeans that I was wearing earlier today. Had I dropped a pants size and not realized it? Nope, I compared the waistlines of both jeans side by side and they're identical. Hell, if anything the allegedly smaller sized jeans are a few millimeters wider then the jeans I've been wearing for months.

God-dammit, size deflation is supposed to be something that happens to women not men. I mean women's sizes don't actually have real-world equivalents - a size six dress is what exactly? What six things does it measure? is it six inches wide? Six hand-spans long? Six furlongs of jogging to fit into it? And now they have zero sizes? Does that mean that the model's waist has gone into hyperspace? Is it infinitely smaller then a size one?

Now men's sizes are supposed to actually mean something. A 34x34 pair of pants means it has a 34 inch waist and a 34 inch long leg. 36 is not supposed to be the same as 34 - it should be two inches wider. Apparently not in Calvin Klein's world though, where they've discovered they can sell more pants by lying to people about how wide they are.

I knew I should have stuck with the Kirkland brand jeans.

Comments

[ladyerwyn.livejournal.com]

Don't let it bother you. That stuff happens. You just have to try on other sizes. They screw women sizes up all the time. God help us if they start doing it to men too.

[jamesq]

That's part of the problem, trying things on. Up until now I didn't have to try things on - I could simply read the size and be assured that if I took it home, it would fit. It was one of the good things about being a guy - clothes shopping didn't take forever, you simply went into the store, grabbed your stuff, paid for it and left.

I guess I'm going to have to worry about that now too.

[evilscientist.livejournal.com]

Remeber also that in mass produced clothing there will be variance within a size due to the cutting process. It all depends on where in the stack of fabric it was when the big cutting press chopped it.

[catalytic.livejournal.com]

I know how you feel. The fashion industry doesn't have any standards at all, even with men's waistlines. I've always had to try pants on before buying because even though they might fit my waist it didn't mean they would fit my legs.

Naturally when I found the perfect pair of jeans at Mark's Work Wearhouse they stopped carrying my size. The same with the perfect size I found at Zellers.

The fashion industry hates me.

[garething.livejournal.com]

The problem I have found in the sizing of men's clothing isn't that the sizes don't make sense, it's that I just have a very hard time finding a pair of pants that fits correctly. I wear a 32 to 34 waist depending on the manufacturer, and a 34 leg, but it is a very hard size to find. I can find a 34/32 easitly, but any leg longer than that is tough to locate. more recently I got some jeans at Wal Mart (gods forgive me) that were 34/34, and they are long enough, but a bit loose in the waist, and (get this) kinda tight in the thighs. That's wierd, since they are supposed to be 'relaxed fit'... Anyhow, the whole point is, you have to try things on.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_thwap_/]

yeah, it's a real pain in the @ss trying to find my size in any kind of pants... I'm a 40/28 and that's nigh impossible to find.. I usually wind up buying a 40/30 or 40/32 just so that the pants fit my waist/thighs. I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never be able to wear a pair of pants without a belt again..

[jamesq]

As a former 42x34, I'm here to tell you it is possible. I've even gone out without belts and not had my pants fall down.

Pre-shrunk?

[bungle-lord.livejournal.com]

I have heard that there is such a thing as pre-shrunk jeans. I would imagine that this implies that the size measurements are the same pre and post washing.

This implies that there are jeans being sold that are not pre-shrunk. Would the manufacturers be clever enough to label their jeans as to the size they would be after you wash them or would they label their jeans in pre-wash size?

-Enquirking minds want to know.

Re: Pre-shrunk?

[jamesq]

This bares investigating.

Re: Pre-shrunk?

[bungle-lord.livejournal.com]

I nude all the self-restraint I possess not to point out how disa-pant-ed your non-punster friends will be with you. It was a clothe call, you slack-er.

P.S. We are so proud of you!!!!

sizing...

[nikitaa.livejournal.com]

You are finally discovering what women have known for years. Men have an easier time with sizing, because their clothing is (usually) a standard size independant of manufacturer and they don't have to worry about clothing fitting over hips.

I came to the conclusion years ago that no clothing is made to fit anyone with curves. Currently, I purchase all of my jeans from Wallyworld, because that's the only place where I can find something that fits over my hips and comes close to my waist size. At that, a belt remains a must. Having said that, I put up with jeans that are a few inches shorter than I would like, just because they fit at the top. The manufacturers are convinced that if you have large hips, you shouldn't have a small waist.

As for sizing being "standard"? Hah! In the women's world, there is no such thing as a standard size - I take everything from a small to a large in top size, and a size 8 to 16 for bottoms - it all depends on the cut (and manufacturer).

Good luck! (And congrats on the change in size, I get the impression that you might be a wee bit thinner than the last time I saw you?)