Interesting visualizations, but I don't understand what the thesis is. To me, the conclusion says:

1. Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity, which is exclusionary.

2. Clothing size standards do not match diverse body types.

3. There is no sizing standard, and companies size however they want.

altairprime 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

0. All commercial premade adult women’s clothing is made exclusively for a small minority of women with hourglass body shapes.

The number one thesis takeaway for me, that I didn’t realize as a woman even after years of dealing with sizing drama, is that clothing manufacturers exclusively market to hourglass body shape alone — which some might recognize better as “pinup model” proportions. As a non-hourglass along with the vast majority of other U.S. women, it’s quite the shock to discover that megacorps are targeting a fraction of the market (hourglass) rather than the largest segment (rectangle).

▲

flumpcakes 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think that must be fashion dependent though? I can think of plenty of women's clothes that are definitely not marketed for hourglass physiques.

	▲	bubblewand 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeah I've shopped for clothes enough for my wife to know that even with an hourglass shape, you're guaranteed to find lots of pieces that're like "OK none of these sizes will work on you". Her particular problem is a small waist paired with an hourglass. Plenty of "ruler"-shaped cuts out there on the small end of waist size, that won't work for her. I wouldn't be surprised if women of every body shape believe that clothes must be targeting some other shape, except the ones who luck into a sizing-region in which multiple body types have a lot of overlap.
	▲	altairprime 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I can think of three major markets right now: Rectangle (athletics-branch brands), Hourglass (most entire fashion brands), and what I believe is Spoon but could be another shape (e.g. Kardashian). If I want to buy something I see in Vanity Fair magazine, and it fits me, then I will be buying: - Rectangle: athleticwear or athletics-adjacent, OR ‘petite’ sizes only - Spoon: bodycon stretch, primarily - Hourglass: 95% of the page surface area of the magazine Other magazines vary this formula, but VF is representing the same three body type divisions that are endemic in U.S. clothing. I think the article fails somewhat in this regard, but I honestly don’t consider it a flaw; they make a solid point and the limited niche exceptions are explicitly ‘niche only’ in the industry in favor of hourglass. I’m pretty certain I can find one niche retailer for any given triplet of { measurements, body shape, aesthetic style } — and it’s the introduction of that third component that reveals the problem. For any given style, say plaid or paisley or bodycon or flowy or “any color that isn’t red, gray, black, or white”, given a set of measurements and a body shape, there may only be one retailer known nationwide to serve that market. Torrid and Long Tall Sally both thrive in their respective triplets’ niches, but if you want clothes that fit you and are styled differently than the one retailer offers, it’s tailoring or nothing. (Incidentally, there’s a severe labor shortage of tailors in the tailoring industry as all the skilled workers are aging out of the workforce, same as CPAs in the accounting industry, so good luck finding one at a reasonable price!)

▲

xxxx_xxxx 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

itake 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

4. Women are the biggest they have ever been in history.

As a 152lb American male, I weigh 11% less than the average American woman.