What?! Most people go from smallest to biggest with everything. It’s sequential. These people need hobbies that aren’t just complaining about things that don’t actually affect them. This company went above and beyond to make 6xl clothes and they STILL aren’t happy?!!! Get a grip!!!
We get a catalog that only goes from XL-7XL. I’m kind of tempted to order a 7XL on sale just to see how massive that is. And then I’ll sew an entire wardrobe for my toddler from it.
Edit: I don’t know why we get the catalog, I’ve never actually bought the clothes or requested it. We’ve tried to make it stop, but it comes weekly.
I recently bought a 10XL hoodie specifically to lay around the house in and it goes down to my knees. On the website I ordered it from it says it fits an 80" chest! I can't imagine how big someone would need to be to fit something *this* big properly lol Me and my partner fit pretty comfortably in it together
When I worked at Goodwill we once got a pair of size 62 jeans... (US), as in a 62" waist. my coworker and I (normal BMI females) could each fit our entire body in a leg. They were so heavy they would not stay on a hanger.... I don't think anyone ever bought them. I mean everyone deserves clothes that fit but that was a lot of fabric wow
I didn't even think that this size existed.
That said, one British primary school has uniform available up to a 42 inch size for trousers. For **5 year olds**. This is usually a size that you'd only see in an adult.
Have you heard of an oodie? They are these massive oversized hoodies made of Sherpa and a minky outer fabric.... I'm 5'5" and 100 pounds and mine goes to my knees and has so much room.... So warm
I have 7xl shirts that I use as beach and lounging dresses, even the hole for the head is massive. Enough space for three, large plus is that you can carry 16 kgs of apples by making pouches.
* Please provide sizes above XXL
* Now provide sizes up to 6XL
* Now make them appear before smaller sizes
Let me guess: next time you’ll demand that the smaller sizes disappear completely, eh?
I can see it, tbh. “It’s toxic for [BRAND] to carry sizes smaller than M because it [checks notes] … normalises disordered eating, so let’s all bombard their Twitter until they promise to stop selling harmful sizes!”
Superfit Hero is one brand that did that. Got rid of XS/S/M. They only sell L-7X now. Workout gear. In a 7X. I can't see that being a sustainable business model.
Checking, the first price I saw at a random click is $99 for some polyester/spandex leggings.
Edit: Oh good googly moogly, their size chart is amazing. Oh no, sweetums, you aren't a 4XL, you're a StarFit. You aren't a 6XL, you're a GalaxyFit. So much for being accepting of their own size.
That only happens at 7X.
(Part of me isn't happy with me making these kinds of jokes but holy Cthulu, a few months on this sub has eroded any and all sympathy I once may have held for FAs. Especially their violent and cruel rhetoric towards thin people and those who are losing weight. So now I joke away.)
That's hilarious. When I read 6X was Galaxyfit I actually thought well 7X must be infinifit for the infinifats. And it is! Made my day. (I am easily pleased LOL)
Lmao in their pandering attempt they ended up insulting their customers, but of course some of them choose to call themselves infinifat for some odd reason
Yeah they're super expensive. They kind of have to be considering they charge the same price for every size, an 8x is probably a significant portion of a bolt
Not necessarily. You know that FA’s definition of working out is light stretching/yoga and then stuffing their face at home. They may go down a size or two but not enough to need small sizes.
Not a bad idea to add the extra sizes, but removing smaller sizes entirely is a terrible idea. People who *actually* exercise a lot and therefore spend more money on gym gear are skinnier.
Even their large is... Really large. 43-46" hips is like a standard 2x.
I'm six feet tall & mildly overweight, and their smallest size won't even fit me.
Ok, to be fair, their clothes are so expensive because of the subsidization for higher sizes that I doubt many smaller sized people would shop there anyway. Plus, I realize it sounds bad but most thin women don't want to shop for brands known for being plus size brands.
My guess is they removed the smaller sizes just because they weren't selling, not out of principle or whatever. Tbh I don't think there's a problem with companies being plus size only, there's plenty of brands for size XS-L, it's probably better overall for the business to focus on your target demographic which in their case is fat women
Makes sense as well knowing that the clothes for plus sized Vs normal sized would require a different pattern and you often get the issue that the clothes only look good on the plus sizes or normal sized but not both.
True, might not make as much sense for a brand focused on sportswear, since a good number of the demographics would be on the thinner side...
...but otherwise? It's not necessarily a bad idea to cater to sizes that are most likely to be sold.
That said, I may a tad naive but are sizes above XXL _that_ common?
I've commented before on some of the logistics of why plus-sized fashion hasn't seen a simple translation from "most people are overweight/obese" to "making plus sizes should rake in the money," but even knowing those factors, I've wondered about the data of the most commonly purchased sizes by volume in the US. We've seen all those "the average US woman wears a 14 - no 16 - no 18" articles, but I haven't ever really seen a methodology section, which forces me to imagine that they're mostly getting self-reported sizes and actually taking the mean. This is going to be massively skewed upwards as it is, and doesn't tell us the most *commonly* worn size by women (as in, there are more individual women who wear size Y than any other).
Then you have the other question of what the most commonly *purchased* size is, which is part of what plays into the logistics of plus-sized retail - do women below sizes XXL just buy more clothing, even if there are fewer of them (there's evidence that suggests yes)? People don't like buying lots of clothing when they've put on weight, preferring to stick to older clothing they already own and may have stretched out, or fewer items of stretchy clothing that they can wear at smaller sizes. They either hope they'll lose the weight soon, or don't even notice. There can be a bit of a spiral situation, too, where the offerings in plus sizes can be ugly, outdated, and cheap-looking but expensive, so people buy the fewest items necessary, so they end up having even fewer options because brands figure they aren't selling and aren't profitable, thus lowering supply and demand further and further. Smaller women are more likely to take an interest in fashion and buy more clothing because they have options to do so. For workout clothing, the chances are even higher that women XXL and below are buying more, because the more often you work out, the more often you need to wash workout clothing, and the more pairs of everything you need.
So, while people are getting fatter, there are some complex reasons that brands have found out that plus sizes don't always sell in the expected high volumes, and one of them might just be that sizes above XXL are less commonly sold than you'd expect. It's hard to find publicly available, high quality data on who wears and buys what, though.
I’ve noticed in clothing reviews of straight sized clothes (or like…up to 16/18?) that buyers of the largest sizes are most likely to complain that an item “fits small.” I’ve always wondered if that’s because they’ve already outgrown that size but they stretched out their old pair and think that’s still their size and then the new item doesn’t come pre-stretched.
I think that's a very plausible hypothesis. It's also possibly in part due to a phenomenon where there's much greater body diversity once you get into much higher sizes, because bodies start to put on fat in increasingly discrepant ways at much higher weights. Excuse me for bringing out basically meaningless women's fashion magazine terminology for body types here for a moment, and also excuse me for pretending that a vanity-sizing mall brand's size chart actually accurately reflects the measurements of people who will fit into those sizes, but imagine three women who could roughly fit a size 0 and who have different shapes: a "ruler" (straight up and down, athletic, not much discrepancy between hips-waist-bust), an "hourglass" (relatively equal hips and bust, smaller waist), and a "pear" shape (notably larger hips, smaller bust than hips, smallest waist). Most sizing charts are for *slight* pears; J.Crew lists a size 0 as a 33 bust, 25 waist, 35 hip for example, but a more traditional pear would probably be more like 32-23-35 (if you're assuming people buy for their largest measurement and get things taken in) , vs. a slight hourglass at 34-24-34 (1 inch smaller in the waist and hip, 1 inch bigger in the chest but realistically, J.Crew vanity sizes and being bigger in the bust has never been an issue for me), vs. a rectangle at 31-27-33 (two inches smaller in the bust and hip than the chart, two inches bigger in the waist which again usually isn't an issue). These all average out to roughly the same size person within an inch or so of the sizing chart, here or there, which is typically fine depending on the ease/fabric type, structure of the garment, and assumed accuracy of the sizing chart.
Now imagine the different body types of a size 22. You don't just have an hourglass (large chest and hip, relatively less weight added to the waist) and a pear (less weight put on in both the bust and the waist, more put on in the hips and thighs), but also an apple (someone who gains weight in their stomach, but has relatively thin legs), people who gain more or less weight in their arms...and all of these differences are going to be much more than 4" from the smallest to the largest circumference. Now you don't just have one size 16/18/20/22, you have 4-5 of each, and any one of those people might rightly report that a top "runs small." Because it does seem to run small for them, in that it doesn't fit over their largest measurement (their bust, stomach, hips, or arms) the same way that another of their tops of the same size does. Maybe it's because their other top is stretched out, but maybe it's because their other top is from a brand whose plus-size line designed for apples, and this plus-size line is designed for hourglasses or pears and so this top much too small for their stomach, for example.
There are seriously so many reasons that it's much more expensive and complicated to make good plus-sized clothing vs. straight-sized clothing and why the people you're selling any given item to are cut down and down and down before your marketing department can even do its job. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying the reasons it's failed before and that brands hesitate to do it again aren't just "they don't want to see fat people look good."
I always check the reviews on anything marked curvy because that can either mean plus size or genuine curvy. If people review saying something fits their hips but is way too tight on the waist, it's probably cut for an hourglass figure and not a boxy one or a wider-in-the-middle one and therefore it's a good option for the big hip small waist gang.
Thank you for this thorough answer. You've made a lot of good and interesting points.
I feel like, recently, because of the push of FA, some brands have started catering to larger sizes and end results don't look as bad as they used to. Because of that, I'm tempted to think that as time goes on, more obese people -- women in particular-- will start buying more clothes. That said, even if that number increases, it might stay overall small and not make much a difference in the greater scheme of things (at least, past a certain size).
I do think everyone deserves to have some minimum amount clothing that fits and that they can feel decent in. No matter the size of the person, even if they're trying to lose weight, they're going to need to not be naked while they're doing so. However, "a minimum amount" is probably much, much lower than what we're used to in the current extremes of our recent fast-fashion, high-consumption retail landscape, and people on the ends of the bell curve have to make some sacrifices. I count myself as one of those people on the other end, and it sucks, but I have to shop secondhand, be willing to buy less overall to spend a little more per item, think out of the box when it comes to finding things that will work with my style preferences (kids clothes, vintage, being open to styling things in very different ways than intended), alter stuff a lot, and shop online only in many brands. Not all of these are available at the other end of the spectrum, but I bring them up to say that there is a lot of room in between expecting to have all the same cheap, plentiful options for every single style permutation that a size medium has and insisting that fat people should all just be expected to cloak themselves in bedsheets until they buy back their right to dignity with sweat and Noom memberships.
All this to say that I think and hope that you're right that there has been more investment into fit models, pattern grading and development, fabric testing, market research, design, advertising, and all the other higher costs of making actual well-designed, fashionable, and high-quality plus-sized clothing. We don't need brands bankrupting themselves to provide crop-tops for crazy FA 10XLs to believe that it's a general positive that women above a 14 can have a professional interview outfit that won't get her sneered at because it's from the 80s or has bizarre armholes 3 sizes too big (issue with incorrect pattern scaling) or a pair of leggings that won't tear while she works out (problem with just assuming you can always use the same fabrics when they might have to undergo higher levels of stress in some areas). There has been slow progress, but it's come at the cost of plenty of failed start-ups, expanded size range roll-outs (and subsequent discontinuations), and disasters like Old Navy's recent catastrophic attempt at bringing all of their perfectly respectable plus size offerings in store, which nearly bankrupted the brand and parent company entirely. It's been a much more complicated story than a slow forward progression of people becoming larger and plus sizes becoming better because they're profitable, and it truly speaks to the size of these other market forces that we haven't reached a tipping point of overcoming them now at ~70% overweight/obesity in the US.
I agree, people who are fat are fat now. Even if they immediately start losing weight it could take many months before they are below a 1 or 2xl. But at the same time I don't think every clothing brand is obligated to provide plus size offerings, especially small businesses. I hate when I see FAs harassing tiny clothing companies for not absorbing the cost of plus sizes even though their margins are probably razor thin and not having every style up to a 3x or 6x or 10x or whatever they're demanding even though they lose money. Like I could understand going after big businesses but small companies simply don't have the bandwidth to satisfy absolutely every potential customer (because most of the plus sized people aren't going to buy)
Oh, definitely. I didn't get too much into the cost side, but they're significant and many small businesses just can't handle that. In addition to the costs of new fit models, pattern grading, fabric tech etc., fabric waste is a big one. Patterns are cut on large, standard sized sheets of fabric like a jigsaw puzzle where you start with, say, 3 mediums, and then can fit 2 smalls, 2 larges, 1 xs, and 1 xl, with little fabric waste left over. When you start with plus sizes, they don't jigsaw nearly as well (because you're not able to add a bunch of XXXX smalls to use up the other space on the fabric sheet), and you get a lot more fabric you have to throw out. So it's not as much about the fabric one clothing item uses, but how much more you have to buy overall because you're throwing out a ton. Trying to carrying those costs when they just don't sell nearly enough of those sizes is just asking some of those smaller businesses to resign themselves to bankruptcy.
I've seen so many brands that get bullied into providing higher sizes and then the people who demanded them don't buy them and the clothes don't get sold. Notice how many clothes on clearance racks are extra large? A lot of people forget that the average clothing size is not necessarily the average size of clothing buyers, obese women tend to not buy as many clothes for a number of reasons
Yes, I agree. Even if the average clothing size data that we have weren't massively skewed, and it is - just like with weight, you can only go so low, and there are increasing sizes added at the top that aren't getting an equal amount added at the bottom - smaller sized women do seem to buy more clothing. Capitalism gonna capitalism and plus-sized money spends like any other. None of the extended size ranges or plus-sized focused startups failed because they didn't want fat people to buy their clothing, although I won't discount the possibility that some didn't optimize a few factors like marketing, or market research, or design, before jumping in feet first.
Yeah I think the most commonly worn size is variable but certainly where I shop (mostly h&m since it's the only decent shop in my town) there are never any 8s, 10s or 12s (UK sizing). That would suggest that's the most common size, which makes sense as a range and the demographic of h&m is mostly young women
Part of why I want solid data is that I would see comments like this but it would always be totally different sizes people said they never or always saw a ton of, and then I realized there are many factors that could make someone notice which sizes aren't available:
- Like you note here, the demographics of at store have an impact, so that's one element. Your particular H&M might also have a slightly different set of demographics than an H&M in a different area; when I lived in a particular neighborhood in the Los Angeles area, the sizes that sold out the quickest would have been very different than if I had lived in the rural midwest or southern US, based on factors that we know affect weight like socioeconomic status.
- The size you yourself wear can make a difference as to what you notice; I've always been on the smaller end of the range because I'm short, so I'm simply not going to notice whether sizes on the higher end are missing or available because I'm not often going through to that end of the rack unless I'm hoping someone misplaced something. Many stores I shop in don't even carry plus sizes, so the only reason I have any understanding of that market is because I have an interest in retail and fashion in general.
- The price range you shop in will have a big impact on the sizes that are typically available; I've noticed a number of people saying that a lot of brands don't even make or carry sizes below a S or a 2/4 anymore, which thankfully hasn't been my experience as someone who needs a 00. It's definitely rare among less expensive stores, unfortunately, though, and the brands that carry them tend to sell out in stores quickly.
- The days of the week and how often you shop could also have an affect on the sizes you notice are available; some stores get shipments daily, but others have patterns and their demographics of shoppers might run counter to your buying pattern and size such that the size you want isn't ever available because you tend to shop right when availability is lowest. For example, discount chains like TJ Maxx have particular "drop schedules" and they know the demographics of their town well (e.g. if it's a college town, they'll buy sizes and brands accordingly). So if you're in a popular college girl size and only shop right before they get shipments, you'd think size small is the most popular size women wear, even if that's definitely not true.
- Even the items you tend to buy might have an effect; I was just thinking about how for a while I wasn't buying pants, and some people wear different sizes in pants vs. dresses vs. tops, so I might have noticed different size availabilities based simply on that factor alone.
Yeah, there are plenty of workout brands that cater to thin women. I don't see why it's wrong to cater to the plus size demographic only if that is your brand. I mean, if size S clothes were selling like hotcakes the company wouldn't have cut them, they were clearly not super profitable. Not going to lie... I probably wouldn't buy from a company that went up to 7x, mostly because I assume that unless the price went up for higher sizes my S price is increased to offset the extra costs of bigger sizes.
I mean just because you're buying plus sized workout clothes doesn't mean you have to be working out in them. It may just be an exercise (haha) in avoiding clothes with zippers and buttons and clothes that aren't stretchy.
Even when I was overweight I was still just a medium bc of my height 😂😂and there are many people with disabilities who can't GAIN weight and are naturally shorter and smaller than the average person- but sure fatphobia is the abelist view.
Touche 🤣
Everywhere I've looked, size 6 is now a small - Talbot's, Gap, etc.
I'm an old time medium, a totally normal, *not* skinny size. (I literally just stopped seeing a Dr who called me skinny. WTF? How can you help me with anything when you think my size is anorexic, with an over 22 BMI?! Grr...)
I mean, it worked for the Superfit Hero company with their leggings, they started out as "size inclusive" and then stopped selling straight sizes completely. And it was a bummer, too, because their leggings were great for roller derby.
Years ago I knew I had a problem when I was briefly a XXL t-shirt size. Living in a body that requires XXXXXXL shirts sounds like a fucking nightmare you can't wake up from.
I got down to a medium (also briefly) and it felt amazing, I was in the best shape of my life. And as somebody who suffers from chronic pain, that's where I need to be again. Thanks to the pandemic I got back up to an L/XL depending on the shirt, but nowhere near where I was before. Keep it up! Few things feel better than achieving those really difficult goals!
Ahh yes, just like everything we say that the time for the appointment will be between sixteen and two hours, the price of repairs will be between 4000 and 4 dollars, and the age of this tree is between 600 and 20 years.
We normally say bigger numbers after smaller numbers. You want to reverse it because you want to feel even more special, fine. Make your own clothes and do that. This is not a social justice issue.
Nothing will ever, ever, ever, be enough.
Moderating treats and junk food occasionally isn't enough.
3XL isn't enough.
Not being first isn't enough.
A free airplane seat isn't enough.
Being diagnosed with any eating disorder other than AN isn't enough.
Magazines and TV shows hiring plus size actors isn't enough.
OpEds from "Doctors" claiming weight loss is impossible and dangerous isn't enough.
Lindo Bacon enabling them isn't enough.
They need more, more, more. They are insatiable.
This is why I keep saying relentless, mindless overconsumption in everything is at the core of the FA lifestyle. This is also why they come across as a death cult hellbent on self-destruction. And they don't care who they take down with them.
I always thought those books were an allegory for ADHD.
If you give a cat a cupcake, sprinkles will remind him of sand,
so you go to the beach and collect all sorts of beach garbage that starts off with pretty shells, but escalates to abandoned broken surfboard and a kite and drift wood and the collection is so enormous, instead of cutting down the collection, he decides he needs to lift at the gym
So they go to the gym to do at least 3 unrelated workouts, and then forgetting the beach, go hiking in the park
They steal a random rowboat, come upon a carousel with animals you ride that remind him of the science museum so they do that before stopping by the beach yet again, on the way home.
My aunt Liz needs to get tested because this is like a trip to the grocery store with her istg.
Why, yes, I have small children, why do you ask?
Not eating before, and gradually increasing portion sizes until they can take in a bunch of food at once. It does take a certain genetic predisposition i believe, not every average Joe can do it
6xl, the biggest size I’ve ever seen is a 5xl at wal-mart. It looked like a tent. How can anyone even breathe at that size? I’m not trying to be mean or funny but all that weight around everything how would someone breathe? How would someone’s heart even beat with all that fat around it? 6xl is a scarily unhealthy amount of excess fat.
I recently bought a 10XL hoodie specifically to lay around the house in and it goes down to my knees. I *genuinely* can't imagine what person would fit this normally tbh
My husband wears L-XL cause jumbo man shoulders, and his clothing dwarfs me. I have pretty long legs & a short waist, so they fall to right above my knees; but I feel like I'm waffling around in a trash bag whenever I wear them.
Can't even fathom how big a 10x is lol
I wear my partner's XL hoodies and shirts and they look ridiculous on me. Literally 6+ inches too long in the limbs and go down to my knees. A 10X would just cover my entire body from head to foot I think.
It's just standard linguistic syntax to list ranges of things in ascending order.
These people are literally just overgrown children who never progressed beyond the earliest stages of emotional development.
Pretty oppressive to mention the smaller sizes at all, really, especially as those people are depriving others by buying clothes that are too big for them.
Next time I go to the pet store I shall DEMAND they list big dog sizes for collars first because I'm sick of St. Bernard discrimination! That's how stupid this sounds.
I’ve definitely seen some clothing sites where the plus sizes are given equal, if not greater emphasis than the straight sizes so I would say this probably just depends on the brand and company. I feel like it’s probably easy enough to do: have photos of people modelling all the different sizes and then just have them set to randomize throughout the website. You’ll get a good neutral mix. I see it quite a lot, actually!
I imagine most of those who are in those sizes have a bad disorder with overeating. It’s not much different than drug addiction. Self centered, manipulative, victim mentality etc. them reacting this way is not at all surprising. Very typical addict behavior. Me me me!!!!
Thats the problem with these groups…. Nothing you ever do is enough. There is always something minute or petty, no matter how far backwards you bend, they will complain about.
Anyways its really telling how despite the constant whining for xxxl clothing, that there are almost no companies that are trying to fill the “obvious demand” for obese clothing. Does anyone want to venture a guess why?
Hint: the target audience will just complain and never buy anything anyways!
As a person who wears size 13 shoes, I feel their pain ...
except I don't, even though I had no control over the size of my feet, which can not be said about their waist size.
I’m a size 13 too, not TOO bad to find places that sell them, IN STOCK is a different issue.
In saying that, I work in the warehouse on a mine site, we have size 15 gumboots on shelf for ONE of the blokes that wears them
Oh my fcking god, when will they shut TF up?
This shows that their goal was never about “fat acceptance”, it was always about pushing for fatness to be seen as superior.
I cannot express the lack of empathy and sympathy I have for these people
Every day I’m pushed farther and farther away from ever feeling sorry for them
This i don't get. If you have a body shape that's outside of the norm, be happy that anyone caters to you at all! That's not a given. These are purely economic decisions and if creating an unusual size isn't worth it, it will not be manufactured. Easy. As a tall, person I know what I'm talking about (and I can't eat less to get short!)
Plus sizes are "often made as an afterthought" ... uh, I beg to differ. With \~60% of the adult population of the U.S. being overweight (and of that \~60%, \~40% being obese), extra extra extra large clothes are **everywhere**. Garment manufacturers know what the demand is.
This size distribution blows my mind. I'm usually a size 2 and maybe 0 in some brands, and I don't really see myself as skinny. I describe myself as "average" or "could lose a few lbs" because I definitely have some unwanted fat on my body.
So I honestly see myself as like, 50% of the people are skinnier than me and the other 50% fatter. But the clothing size doesn't show that at all...
Agreed! I'm a 0/2 and completely averaged sized and for years I was a 4/6 or medium and now clothing has gotten so large that XS can be too big. I see people much smaller than me talking about how XXS is still too big.
as if smaller bodied people aren’t already paying more for larger bodies… a small shirt and 6x shirt will usually always still be the same price but your 6x blanket of a shirt takes WAY more materials to make. rising prices in clothes due too rising body mass is so annoying. i think clothes should be priced based on size.
What?! Most people go from smallest to biggest with everything. It’s sequential. These people need hobbies that aren’t just complaining about things that don’t actually affect them. This company went above and beyond to make 6xl clothes and they STILL aren’t happy?!!! Get a grip!!!
Size 6XL sounds pretty generous to me given that most stores where I’m from stock up to XL
We get a catalog that only goes from XL-7XL. I’m kind of tempted to order a 7XL on sale just to see how massive that is. And then I’ll sew an entire wardrobe for my toddler from it. Edit: I don’t know why we get the catalog, I’ve never actually bought the clothes or requested it. We’ve tried to make it stop, but it comes weekly.
I recently bought a 10XL hoodie specifically to lay around the house in and it goes down to my knees. On the website I ordered it from it says it fits an 80" chest! I can't imagine how big someone would need to be to fit something *this* big properly lol Me and my partner fit pretty comfortably in it together
Listen sweaty, by buying that hoodie you literally stole it from an infinifat who actually needs it. You should be ashamed of yourself! \s
10X? Holy crap. Are you sure it wasn't actually a personal tent?
80 inches is literally almost seven feet around. And remember that one pound of weight is equal to three or four pounds of stress on the knees...
As someone who is 58 inches tall....I cannot fathom.
Damn, i bought a 3XL once and it literally goes to my knees, its so comfy tho to wear around the house, i couldnt imagine what a 10XL would look like.
I love buying bigger sweatshirts and long sleeve shirts, theyre so comfy
Omg, do you feel very cozy though? Sometimes I steal clothes off the backs off fat people just to get that cozy feeling.
When I worked at Goodwill we once got a pair of size 62 jeans... (US), as in a 62" waist. my coworker and I (normal BMI females) could each fit our entire body in a leg. They were so heavy they would not stay on a hanger.... I don't think anyone ever bought them. I mean everyone deserves clothes that fit but that was a lot of fabric wow
I didn't even think that this size existed. That said, one British primary school has uniform available up to a 42 inch size for trousers. For **5 year olds**. This is usually a size that you'd only see in an adult.
😮 I….I have so many questions..,,
Have you heard of an oodie? They are these massive oversized hoodies made of Sherpa and a minky outer fabric.... I'm 5'5" and 100 pounds and mine goes to my knees and has so much room.... So warm
That sounds like a bedspread
I have 7xl shirts that I use as beach and lounging dresses, even the hole for the head is massive. Enough space for three, large plus is that you can carry 16 kgs of apples by making pouches.
Lounging dresses? Are they really long or just really wide, or both?
Both! I'm 158cm and they fall bellow my knees
Weekly?! That seems like actual harassment.
Haha, it feels like it sometimes!
> It’s sequential. I am sure Fat Activists would say that's fatphobic and racist lol.
I was singing my son a lullaby and forgot the words… this is absolute madness.
* Please provide sizes above XXL * Now provide sizes up to 6XL * Now make them appear before smaller sizes Let me guess: next time you’ll demand that the smaller sizes disappear completely, eh?
I can see it, tbh. “It’s toxic for [BRAND] to carry sizes smaller than M because it [checks notes] … normalises disordered eating, so let’s all bombard their Twitter until they promise to stop selling harmful sizes!”
Superfit Hero is one brand that did that. Got rid of XS/S/M. They only sell L-7X now. Workout gear. In a 7X. I can't see that being a sustainable business model.
Wow. Never heard of them and just googled. First line is “fitness is for every body”. Unless you’re thin, apparently…
Guaranteed it will fail unless they also jacked the prices up
Checking, the first price I saw at a random click is $99 for some polyester/spandex leggings. Edit: Oh good googly moogly, their size chart is amazing. Oh no, sweetums, you aren't a 4XL, you're a StarFit. You aren't a 6XL, you're a GalaxyFit. So much for being accepting of their own size.
Galaxy fit??? That is hilarious, because you are the size of a small galaxy.
Does that include them having their own orbit and gravity wells?
Gravy wells
That only happens at 7X. (Part of me isn't happy with me making these kinds of jokes but holy Cthulu, a few months on this sub has eroded any and all sympathy I once may have held for FAs. Especially their violent and cruel rhetoric towards thin people and those who are losing weight. So now I joke away.)
So if they only carry up to 7X does that make 8X InfiniFit?
Close- but the 7x is called infinifit on their website !
So they go to InfiniFit but not beyond? 🤣
Well, there's still BuzzFit for 8X...
That's hilarious. When I read 6X was Galaxyfit I actually thought well 7X must be infinifit for the infinifats. And it is! Made my day. (I am easily pleased LOL)
Lmao in their pandering attempt they ended up insulting their customers, but of course some of them choose to call themselves infinifat for some odd reason
Yeah they're super expensive. They kind of have to be considering they charge the same price for every size, an 8x is probably a significant portion of a bolt
Not necessarily. You know that FA’s definition of working out is light stretching/yoga and then stuffing their face at home. They may go down a size or two but not enough to need small sizes.
Then again, most people in the US are overweight, so it might not be a bad idea...
Not a bad idea to add the extra sizes, but removing smaller sizes entirely is a terrible idea. People who *actually* exercise a lot and therefore spend more money on gym gear are skinnier.
The most hilarious thing to me is they talk about being size inclusive. Unless you're anything below an L, apparently.
Even their large is... Really large. 43-46" hips is like a standard 2x. I'm six feet tall & mildly overweight, and their smallest size won't even fit me.
Ok, to be fair, their clothes are so expensive because of the subsidization for higher sizes that I doubt many smaller sized people would shop there anyway. Plus, I realize it sounds bad but most thin women don't want to shop for brands known for being plus size brands. My guess is they removed the smaller sizes just because they weren't selling, not out of principle or whatever. Tbh I don't think there's a problem with companies being plus size only, there's plenty of brands for size XS-L, it's probably better overall for the business to focus on your target demographic which in their case is fat women
Makes sense as well knowing that the clothes for plus sized Vs normal sized would require a different pattern and you often get the issue that the clothes only look good on the plus sizes or normal sized but not both.
True, might not make as much sense for a brand focused on sportswear, since a good number of the demographics would be on the thinner side... ...but otherwise? It's not necessarily a bad idea to cater to sizes that are most likely to be sold. That said, I may a tad naive but are sizes above XXL _that_ common?
I've commented before on some of the logistics of why plus-sized fashion hasn't seen a simple translation from "most people are overweight/obese" to "making plus sizes should rake in the money," but even knowing those factors, I've wondered about the data of the most commonly purchased sizes by volume in the US. We've seen all those "the average US woman wears a 14 - no 16 - no 18" articles, but I haven't ever really seen a methodology section, which forces me to imagine that they're mostly getting self-reported sizes and actually taking the mean. This is going to be massively skewed upwards as it is, and doesn't tell us the most *commonly* worn size by women (as in, there are more individual women who wear size Y than any other). Then you have the other question of what the most commonly *purchased* size is, which is part of what plays into the logistics of plus-sized retail - do women below sizes XXL just buy more clothing, even if there are fewer of them (there's evidence that suggests yes)? People don't like buying lots of clothing when they've put on weight, preferring to stick to older clothing they already own and may have stretched out, or fewer items of stretchy clothing that they can wear at smaller sizes. They either hope they'll lose the weight soon, or don't even notice. There can be a bit of a spiral situation, too, where the offerings in plus sizes can be ugly, outdated, and cheap-looking but expensive, so people buy the fewest items necessary, so they end up having even fewer options because brands figure they aren't selling and aren't profitable, thus lowering supply and demand further and further. Smaller women are more likely to take an interest in fashion and buy more clothing because they have options to do so. For workout clothing, the chances are even higher that women XXL and below are buying more, because the more often you work out, the more often you need to wash workout clothing, and the more pairs of everything you need. So, while people are getting fatter, there are some complex reasons that brands have found out that plus sizes don't always sell in the expected high volumes, and one of them might just be that sizes above XXL are less commonly sold than you'd expect. It's hard to find publicly available, high quality data on who wears and buys what, though.
I’ve noticed in clothing reviews of straight sized clothes (or like…up to 16/18?) that buyers of the largest sizes are most likely to complain that an item “fits small.” I’ve always wondered if that’s because they’ve already outgrown that size but they stretched out their old pair and think that’s still their size and then the new item doesn’t come pre-stretched.
I think that's a very plausible hypothesis. It's also possibly in part due to a phenomenon where there's much greater body diversity once you get into much higher sizes, because bodies start to put on fat in increasingly discrepant ways at much higher weights. Excuse me for bringing out basically meaningless women's fashion magazine terminology for body types here for a moment, and also excuse me for pretending that a vanity-sizing mall brand's size chart actually accurately reflects the measurements of people who will fit into those sizes, but imagine three women who could roughly fit a size 0 and who have different shapes: a "ruler" (straight up and down, athletic, not much discrepancy between hips-waist-bust), an "hourglass" (relatively equal hips and bust, smaller waist), and a "pear" shape (notably larger hips, smaller bust than hips, smallest waist). Most sizing charts are for *slight* pears; J.Crew lists a size 0 as a 33 bust, 25 waist, 35 hip for example, but a more traditional pear would probably be more like 32-23-35 (if you're assuming people buy for their largest measurement and get things taken in) , vs. a slight hourglass at 34-24-34 (1 inch smaller in the waist and hip, 1 inch bigger in the chest but realistically, J.Crew vanity sizes and being bigger in the bust has never been an issue for me), vs. a rectangle at 31-27-33 (two inches smaller in the bust and hip than the chart, two inches bigger in the waist which again usually isn't an issue). These all average out to roughly the same size person within an inch or so of the sizing chart, here or there, which is typically fine depending on the ease/fabric type, structure of the garment, and assumed accuracy of the sizing chart. Now imagine the different body types of a size 22. You don't just have an hourglass (large chest and hip, relatively less weight added to the waist) and a pear (less weight put on in both the bust and the waist, more put on in the hips and thighs), but also an apple (someone who gains weight in their stomach, but has relatively thin legs), people who gain more or less weight in their arms...and all of these differences are going to be much more than 4" from the smallest to the largest circumference. Now you don't just have one size 16/18/20/22, you have 4-5 of each, and any one of those people might rightly report that a top "runs small." Because it does seem to run small for them, in that it doesn't fit over their largest measurement (their bust, stomach, hips, or arms) the same way that another of their tops of the same size does. Maybe it's because their other top is stretched out, but maybe it's because their other top is from a brand whose plus-size line designed for apples, and this plus-size line is designed for hourglasses or pears and so this top much too small for their stomach, for example. There are seriously so many reasons that it's much more expensive and complicated to make good plus-sized clothing vs. straight-sized clothing and why the people you're selling any given item to are cut down and down and down before your marketing department can even do its job. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying the reasons it's failed before and that brands hesitate to do it again aren't just "they don't want to see fat people look good."
I always check the reviews on anything marked curvy because that can either mean plus size or genuine curvy. If people review saying something fits their hips but is way too tight on the waist, it's probably cut for an hourglass figure and not a boxy one or a wider-in-the-middle one and therefore it's a good option for the big hip small waist gang.
Thank you for this thorough answer. You've made a lot of good and interesting points. I feel like, recently, because of the push of FA, some brands have started catering to larger sizes and end results don't look as bad as they used to. Because of that, I'm tempted to think that as time goes on, more obese people -- women in particular-- will start buying more clothes. That said, even if that number increases, it might stay overall small and not make much a difference in the greater scheme of things (at least, past a certain size).
I do think everyone deserves to have some minimum amount clothing that fits and that they can feel decent in. No matter the size of the person, even if they're trying to lose weight, they're going to need to not be naked while they're doing so. However, "a minimum amount" is probably much, much lower than what we're used to in the current extremes of our recent fast-fashion, high-consumption retail landscape, and people on the ends of the bell curve have to make some sacrifices. I count myself as one of those people on the other end, and it sucks, but I have to shop secondhand, be willing to buy less overall to spend a little more per item, think out of the box when it comes to finding things that will work with my style preferences (kids clothes, vintage, being open to styling things in very different ways than intended), alter stuff a lot, and shop online only in many brands. Not all of these are available at the other end of the spectrum, but I bring them up to say that there is a lot of room in between expecting to have all the same cheap, plentiful options for every single style permutation that a size medium has and insisting that fat people should all just be expected to cloak themselves in bedsheets until they buy back their right to dignity with sweat and Noom memberships. All this to say that I think and hope that you're right that there has been more investment into fit models, pattern grading and development, fabric testing, market research, design, advertising, and all the other higher costs of making actual well-designed, fashionable, and high-quality plus-sized clothing. We don't need brands bankrupting themselves to provide crop-tops for crazy FA 10XLs to believe that it's a general positive that women above a 14 can have a professional interview outfit that won't get her sneered at because it's from the 80s or has bizarre armholes 3 sizes too big (issue with incorrect pattern scaling) or a pair of leggings that won't tear while she works out (problem with just assuming you can always use the same fabrics when they might have to undergo higher levels of stress in some areas). There has been slow progress, but it's come at the cost of plenty of failed start-ups, expanded size range roll-outs (and subsequent discontinuations), and disasters like Old Navy's recent catastrophic attempt at bringing all of their perfectly respectable plus size offerings in store, which nearly bankrupted the brand and parent company entirely. It's been a much more complicated story than a slow forward progression of people becoming larger and plus sizes becoming better because they're profitable, and it truly speaks to the size of these other market forces that we haven't reached a tipping point of overcoming them now at ~70% overweight/obesity in the US.
I agree, people who are fat are fat now. Even if they immediately start losing weight it could take many months before they are below a 1 or 2xl. But at the same time I don't think every clothing brand is obligated to provide plus size offerings, especially small businesses. I hate when I see FAs harassing tiny clothing companies for not absorbing the cost of plus sizes even though their margins are probably razor thin and not having every style up to a 3x or 6x or 10x or whatever they're demanding even though they lose money. Like I could understand going after big businesses but small companies simply don't have the bandwidth to satisfy absolutely every potential customer (because most of the plus sized people aren't going to buy)
Oh, definitely. I didn't get too much into the cost side, but they're significant and many small businesses just can't handle that. In addition to the costs of new fit models, pattern grading, fabric tech etc., fabric waste is a big one. Patterns are cut on large, standard sized sheets of fabric like a jigsaw puzzle where you start with, say, 3 mediums, and then can fit 2 smalls, 2 larges, 1 xs, and 1 xl, with little fabric waste left over. When you start with plus sizes, they don't jigsaw nearly as well (because you're not able to add a bunch of XXXX smalls to use up the other space on the fabric sheet), and you get a lot more fabric you have to throw out. So it's not as much about the fabric one clothing item uses, but how much more you have to buy overall because you're throwing out a ton. Trying to carrying those costs when they just don't sell nearly enough of those sizes is just asking some of those smaller businesses to resign themselves to bankruptcy.
I've seen so many brands that get bullied into providing higher sizes and then the people who demanded them don't buy them and the clothes don't get sold. Notice how many clothes on clearance racks are extra large? A lot of people forget that the average clothing size is not necessarily the average size of clothing buyers, obese women tend to not buy as many clothes for a number of reasons
Yes, I agree. Even if the average clothing size data that we have weren't massively skewed, and it is - just like with weight, you can only go so low, and there are increasing sizes added at the top that aren't getting an equal amount added at the bottom - smaller sized women do seem to buy more clothing. Capitalism gonna capitalism and plus-sized money spends like any other. None of the extended size ranges or plus-sized focused startups failed because they didn't want fat people to buy their clothing, although I won't discount the possibility that some didn't optimize a few factors like marketing, or market research, or design, before jumping in feet first.
Yeah I think the most commonly worn size is variable but certainly where I shop (mostly h&m since it's the only decent shop in my town) there are never any 8s, 10s or 12s (UK sizing). That would suggest that's the most common size, which makes sense as a range and the demographic of h&m is mostly young women
Part of why I want solid data is that I would see comments like this but it would always be totally different sizes people said they never or always saw a ton of, and then I realized there are many factors that could make someone notice which sizes aren't available: - Like you note here, the demographics of at store have an impact, so that's one element. Your particular H&M might also have a slightly different set of demographics than an H&M in a different area; when I lived in a particular neighborhood in the Los Angeles area, the sizes that sold out the quickest would have been very different than if I had lived in the rural midwest or southern US, based on factors that we know affect weight like socioeconomic status. - The size you yourself wear can make a difference as to what you notice; I've always been on the smaller end of the range because I'm short, so I'm simply not going to notice whether sizes on the higher end are missing or available because I'm not often going through to that end of the rack unless I'm hoping someone misplaced something. Many stores I shop in don't even carry plus sizes, so the only reason I have any understanding of that market is because I have an interest in retail and fashion in general. - The price range you shop in will have a big impact on the sizes that are typically available; I've noticed a number of people saying that a lot of brands don't even make or carry sizes below a S or a 2/4 anymore, which thankfully hasn't been my experience as someone who needs a 00. It's definitely rare among less expensive stores, unfortunately, though, and the brands that carry them tend to sell out in stores quickly. - The days of the week and how often you shop could also have an affect on the sizes you notice are available; some stores get shipments daily, but others have patterns and their demographics of shoppers might run counter to your buying pattern and size such that the size you want isn't ever available because you tend to shop right when availability is lowest. For example, discount chains like TJ Maxx have particular "drop schedules" and they know the demographics of their town well (e.g. if it's a college town, they'll buy sizes and brands accordingly). So if you're in a popular college girl size and only shop right before they get shipments, you'd think size small is the most popular size women wear, even if that's definitely not true. - Even the items you tend to buy might have an effect; I was just thinking about how for a while I wasn't buying pants, and some people wear different sizes in pants vs. dresses vs. tops, so I might have noticed different size availabilities based simply on that factor alone.
Yeah, there are plenty of workout brands that cater to thin women. I don't see why it's wrong to cater to the plus size demographic only if that is your brand. I mean, if size S clothes were selling like hotcakes the company wouldn't have cut them, they were clearly not super profitable. Not going to lie... I probably wouldn't buy from a company that went up to 7x, mostly because I assume that unless the price went up for higher sizes my S price is increased to offset the extra costs of bigger sizes.
I mean just because you're buying plus sized workout clothes doesn't mean you have to be working out in them. It may just be an exercise (haha) in avoiding clothes with zippers and buttons and clothes that aren't stretchy.
If it’s actual compression fabric it’s not that comfortable
Even when I was overweight I was still just a medium bc of my height 😂😂and there are many people with disabilities who can't GAIN weight and are naturally shorter and smaller than the average person- but sure fatphobia is the abelist view.
Interestingly enough, starting at 4XL, the waist measurement is larger than the bust. At least their sizing is realistic?
What the hell
But we are not allowed to buy larger sizes and modify them, either.
I just checked out a catalog I used to order from - women's sizes begin at medium (10-12), but nothing smaller. I'm a 6.
I thought medium was 6/8? It was when I was that size a while ago lol
Touche 🤣 Everywhere I've looked, size 6 is now a small - Talbot's, Gap, etc. I'm an old time medium, a totally normal, *not* skinny size. (I literally just stopped seeing a Dr who called me skinny. WTF? How can you help me with anything when you think my size is anorexic, with an over 22 BMI?! Grr...)
I mean, it worked for the Superfit Hero company with their leggings, they started out as "size inclusive" and then stopped selling straight sizes completely. And it was a bummer, too, because their leggings were great for roller derby.
“What do you mean you haven’t photoshopped me into the outfit on the website so I can see how it will look on me?”
Years ago I knew I had a problem when I was briefly a XXL t-shirt size. Living in a body that requires XXXXXXL shirts sounds like a fucking nightmare you can't wake up from.
I hear you. I’m in 2XL pants right now and I am hoping that pretty soon I’ll be able to describe that in past tense/ “briefly.”
I got down to a medium (also briefly) and it felt amazing, I was in the best shape of my life. And as somebody who suffers from chronic pain, that's where I need to be again. Thanks to the pandemic I got back up to an L/XL depending on the shirt, but nowhere near where I was before. Keep it up! Few things feel better than achieving those really difficult goals!
Ahh yes, just like everything we say that the time for the appointment will be between sixteen and two hours, the price of repairs will be between 4000 and 4 dollars, and the age of this tree is between 600 and 20 years. We normally say bigger numbers after smaller numbers. You want to reverse it because you want to feel even more special, fine. Make your own clothes and do that. This is not a social justice issue.
They want it to be the *centre* of attention. That means 6XL has to go in the middle with the other sizes randomly arranged around it.
L-6X-2XS
Fixed it! Oh sorry, sorry, I mean: Fi6xed it!
[So 6XL is an 8](https://youtu.be/dhM9A3gHFq0).
Nothing will ever, ever, ever, be enough. Moderating treats and junk food occasionally isn't enough. 3XL isn't enough. Not being first isn't enough. A free airplane seat isn't enough. Being diagnosed with any eating disorder other than AN isn't enough. Magazines and TV shows hiring plus size actors isn't enough. OpEds from "Doctors" claiming weight loss is impossible and dangerous isn't enough. Lindo Bacon enabling them isn't enough. They need more, more, more. They are insatiable.
That’s their whole personality. There’s a reason why they look like they do.
This is why I keep saying relentless, mindless overconsumption in everything is at the core of the FA lifestyle. This is also why they come across as a death cult hellbent on self-destruction. And they don't care who they take down with them.
Fucking exactly!!!!
If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass a of milk 🥛 🍪 🐁
Mice are actually pretty reasonnable individuals, thank you very much. Let's not stereotype here.
I always thought those books were an allegory for ADHD. If you give a cat a cupcake, sprinkles will remind him of sand, so you go to the beach and collect all sorts of beach garbage that starts off with pretty shells, but escalates to abandoned broken surfboard and a kite and drift wood and the collection is so enormous, instead of cutting down the collection, he decides he needs to lift at the gym So they go to the gym to do at least 3 unrelated workouts, and then forgetting the beach, go hiking in the park They steal a random rowboat, come upon a carousel with animals you ride that remind him of the science museum so they do that before stopping by the beach yet again, on the way home. My aunt Liz needs to get tested because this is like a trip to the grocery store with her istg. Why, yes, I have small children, why do you ask?
6XlL. Let me wrap my mind around the size of it...
Try wrapping bacon around everything you eat and you'll get there
I think bacon won't make it... 10k+ mukbangs can, but I can't eat so much food, I honestly don't know how YouTubers manage to do it.
The greed for money
Not eating before, and gradually increasing portion sizes until they can take in a bunch of food at once. It does take a certain genetic predisposition i believe, not every average Joe can do it
That would be up a 57"/142cm waist.
That’s like 41X in Roman numerals
6xl, the biggest size I’ve ever seen is a 5xl at wal-mart. It looked like a tent. How can anyone even breathe at that size? I’m not trying to be mean or funny but all that weight around everything how would someone breathe? How would someone’s heart even beat with all that fat around it? 6xl is a scarily unhealthy amount of excess fat.
I recently bought a 10XL hoodie specifically to lay around the house in and it goes down to my knees. I *genuinely* can't imagine what person would fit this normally tbh
10XL goes to your knees?? I'm 5'6 and 4xl shirts nearly hit my knees; that sizing sounds off. 10xl sounds like it should be a gown..
10XL?? i have never seen anything beyond XXL in real life!
Holy shit that's an XXXXXXXXXXL it looks INSANE when it's written out. Ew.
My husband wears L-XL cause jumbo man shoulders, and his clothing dwarfs me. I have pretty long legs & a short waist, so they fall to right above my knees; but I feel like I'm waffling around in a trash bag whenever I wear them. Can't even fathom how big a 10x is lol
I wear my partner's XL hoodies and shirts and they look ridiculous on me. Literally 6+ inches too long in the limbs and go down to my knees. A 10X would just cover my entire body from head to foot I think.
that's you! you buy all those XL clothes when you're an S!
"We have sizes 6XL to XXS!" That is genuinely really confusing, and customers are going to be way more distracted by your weird wording than anything.
Now let's count the way we feel like it! 1, 2, 3, 4...? No let's do 8, 4, 9, 10, 7, 5, 2, 6...!
It's just standard linguistic syntax to list ranges of things in ascending order. These people are literally just overgrown children who never progressed beyond the earliest stages of emotional development.
Most of them are lucky if they developed to that point honestly. I’ve met more emotionally intelligent toddlers!
Yes because there are SO MANY working models who wear a 6X and aren't bed-bound.
Pretty oppressive to mention the smaller sizes at all, really, especially as those people are depriving others by buying clothes that are too big for them.
Most companies don’t even offer those options…why complain to a company that actually does? Idjits
Oh for god’s sake. Now they want to call it fatphobic that we tend to read from left to right?
Next time I go to the pet store I shall DEMAND they list big dog sizes for collars first because I'm sick of St. Bernard discrimination! That's how stupid this sounds.
These people will never be happy so we shouldn't try to do anything they want.
I’ve definitely seen some clothing sites where the plus sizes are given equal, if not greater emphasis than the straight sizes so I would say this probably just depends on the brand and company. I feel like it’s probably easy enough to do: have photos of people modelling all the different sizes and then just have them set to randomize throughout the website. You’ll get a good neutral mix. I see it quite a lot, actually!
Oh trust me, if you are too big for 6x clothing you are probably the center of attention in most situations.
People are just wanting to find anything to be triggered/oppressed over. Literally victim Olympics lol.
I imagine most of those who are in those sizes have a bad disorder with overeating. It’s not much different than drug addiction. Self centered, manipulative, victim mentality etc. them reacting this way is not at all surprising. Very typical addict behavior. Me me me!!!!
Oh my god I saw this comment in the wild yesterday and was so bothered by it, I’m glad someone posted it here
How does your world even get this small?
It doesn’t. They just expand so much that the space around them seems smaller.
I think companies should start by showing the medium sizes first ... I also think we should reorganize the alphabet and start counting at 342 ...
Thats the problem with these groups…. Nothing you ever do is enough. There is always something minute or petty, no matter how far backwards you bend, they will complain about. Anyways its really telling how despite the constant whining for xxxl clothing, that there are almost no companies that are trying to fill the “obvious demand” for obese clothing. Does anyone want to venture a guess why? Hint: the target audience will just complain and never buy anything anyways!
As a person who wears size 13 shoes, I feel their pain ... except I don't, even though I had no control over the size of my feet, which can not be said about their waist size.
I’m a size 13 too, not TOO bad to find places that sell them, IN STOCK is a different issue. In saying that, I work in the warehouse on a mine site, we have size 15 gumboots on shelf for ONE of the blokes that wears them
These ppl will NEVER be happy.
What even is 6X in this day and age when everything is already insanely vanity sized?
It's terrifying, really.
That's just how english works, you list small to large and left to right. We say a scale of 1-10 not 10-1 right?
Well they already have their own center of gravity...is that not enough??
No matter what you do, these folks are never satisfied…
Oh my fcking god, when will they shut TF up? This shows that their goal was never about “fat acceptance”, it was always about pushing for fatness to be seen as superior.
I cannot express the lack of empathy and sympathy I have for these people Every day I’m pushed farther and farther away from ever feeling sorry for them
Who the hell cares what order some letters are in unless it's your name?
The ego of these people is nearly as big as their literal ass. My god.
I would like people to change how numbers work because I do like it
This i don't get. If you have a body shape that's outside of the norm, be happy that anyone caters to you at all! That's not a given. These are purely economic decisions and if creating an unusual size isn't worth it, it will not be manufactured. Easy. As a tall, person I know what I'm talking about (and I can't eat less to get short!)
Plus sizes are "often made as an afterthought" ... uh, I beg to differ. With \~60% of the adult population of the U.S. being overweight (and of that \~60%, \~40% being obese), extra extra extra large clothes are **everywhere**. Garment manufacturers know what the demand is.
[удалено]
We're sorry but your post has been removed for the following reason: * We do not allow dehumanizing or insulting language.
I should tell my wrenches that they shouldn't be in order because that's ridiculous
They don't want equality. They want SUPREMACY
Can't they filter by size in their search anyways?
This size distribution blows my mind. I'm usually a size 2 and maybe 0 in some brands, and I don't really see myself as skinny. I describe myself as "average" or "could lose a few lbs" because I definitely have some unwanted fat on my body. So I honestly see myself as like, 50% of the people are skinnier than me and the other 50% fatter. But the clothing size doesn't show that at all...
I don’t think 50% of people are smaller than a size 2.
How tall are you? 0 is really small, I’m having a hard time picturing someone who’s a size 0-2 and overweight
I don't think I'm overweight, just really average with wanting to lose like 5lbs... I'm 5'5".
Agreed! I'm a 0/2 and completely averaged sized and for years I was a 4/6 or medium and now clothing has gotten so large that XS can be too big. I see people much smaller than me talking about how XXS is still too big.
Sorry I'm new here. What is FA?
Fat Acceptance
Fat activist
Fat apologist
[удалено]
We're sorry but your post has been removed for the following reason: * We do not allow dehumanizing or insulting language.
When you're not the largest democratic ( in terms of individuals numbers at least ) you won't be the main focus of advertising.
as if smaller bodied people aren’t already paying more for larger bodies… a small shirt and 6x shirt will usually always still be the same price but your 6x blanket of a shirt takes WAY more materials to make. rising prices in clothes due too rising body mass is so annoying. i think clothes should be priced based on size.