Size 16 mannequin good or bad?

2»

Comments

  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    size 16 IS large.

     

     

  • I cant remember who said that we should have manequins of all different shapes and sizes is right, there are so many of them! As for the arms they are fine in length but never cater for women with musles on arms or legs, I often end up having to by sizes to big in waste to fit legs... good jobs belts were invented! And tops are always so short!!!!! I think they are a good idea having other size manequins rather then just the stick thin model shapes.... bring in more sizes I say!
  • Marilyn Monroe was not a modern day 16.   I wear 32 inch jeans and need a belt with them - I found an old pair of 32 inch levis some time ago I'd worn when I was 17 or 18,    I couldn't button them up.    Sizing has changed so much to flatter us.  

  • CK underwear models should be more realistic. They should have beer guts and small winkies. That will increase sales no end.
  • No, I'm not volunteering, although i do pass the entry criteria.
  • That's the second time I've heard the word "winkie" this week.

  • I'd plead not guilty, mate.
  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭
    popsider wrote (see)

    Marilyn Monroe was not a modern day 16.   I wear 32 inch jeans and need a belt with them - I found an old pair of 32 inch levis some time ago I'd worn when I was 17 or 18,    I couldn't button them up.    Sizing has changed so much to flatter us.  

    "ONE of the many mysteries surrounding the female sex is that a woman who weighs roughly the same as she did 20 or more years ago now wears smaller-sized clothes than she used to. The explanation is “size inflation”: clothes with the same size label have become steadily larger over time.

    Measurements vary by brand, but research by The Economist finds that the average British size-14 pair of women's trousers is more than four inches bigger at the waist today than they were in the 1970s (see chart), and over three inches wider at the hips. A size 14 today fits like a former size 18, and a size 10 fits like an old size 14. The same “downsizing” has happened in America where, to confuse matters further, a size 10 is equivalent to a British size 12 or 14, depending on the manufacturer.

    As the average girth of women has increased, fashion firms have stretched the size of their garments, partly in the belief that women feel better (and so are more likely to buy) if they can squeeze into the same size dress as in their more slender youth. Most women would be shocked to know that they have gone up two whole dress sizes.

    Such inflation mainly affects women's clothing, since most men's trousers are sized in inches rather than arbitrary units. But men are not immune. Studies in America and Britain have found that some brands of men's trousers labelled “waist 36 inches”, say, are in fact up to five inches bigger. Size inflation flatters customers, but the danger is that it encourages overweight people to dismiss health risks and reduces the incentive to diet. For the roughly three-fifths of adult Britons who are overweight, size really does matter."

     

    http://www.economist.com/node/21552262

     

     

     

  • Don't come on here confusing the argument with facts!
  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    interesting that the average man could be up to five inches bigger these days.

     

  • That's what i tell the ladies.
  • Do ladies actually look at the mannequins and visualise themselves?

    I always thought that the idea was that because ladies come in all shapes and sizes the mannequins were meant to suggest that if you wore 'these lovely clothes' you too will look as lovely. Similar to buy 'this perfume' and you will be more desirable.

    Currently most mannequins look like the ideal teen/20 something image. Resulting of course in women buying a size (or more) smaller than they need and the queue of disappointed returning purchases.

     

  • I wonder when we became a nation where the number stamp into our clothes has become such a thing? Why should we have issues over not fitting into a size 10 pair of jeans that have been designed to fit a model who lets face it a) dont really have "womenly" bodies and b) are defently not a representation of thr british women. Why should I feel down hearted because I cant fit into that pair of jeans with my Normal size in them because my thighs touch and they arnt a stick, which so many cloths manufacturers seem to think we all are. The fact that I cant fit I to a size 10 unless I shave some of my hip bones off does that make me fat? When did size 16 become a larger lady? I see so many people squeezing themself jnto clothes because they are fantion which tbh look dreadfull! Maybe we shiuld be changing the clothing manufacturing and design rather then the puttkng a lager manequin, we shouldn't need to be shown that 16 is ok because we shoukd know it already. I wouldnt say I was a boyish figure but im certainly not a womenly figure which tbh anouyes me more than not squeezing in a size 10 deep down surely we can as a nation have more common sense to see that size doesnt matter as long as we are healthy and nice people im nit saying being morbidity obease is ok but on a health level not kn a you dont look good. I spose that was a very long way of saying it doeznt matter what size clothes you wear wether there 10 or an 18 stamped in them as long as they fit.... so why are we so obsessed with it? Its not an indication of health personality or good looks.... maybe they should have a healthy nice looking dummy with sitting at a desk pushing a wheel chair... because lets face it who looks like any of the dummys and who stands in the poses most of them are in! Apologies for rant!
  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    size is important from a health point of view though.

    people want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore that fact, as long as they're "average" they're happy no matter how big average might become. 

    just hang around with fatter friends and you will feel good.

    personally i don't mind size, as long as they are literate.

     

     

  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    From BBC report about it:

    Debenhams introduces plus size mannequins

     

    A major UK department store is introducing larger mannequins to its stores.

    Mannequins are usually a size 10, but Debenhams will be using a new size 16 dummy to reflect the size of many of its customers.

  • skotty.........why on earth do they equate size 16 with unhealthy though.no head in the sand..

    I am fit active and no health issues.i am a size 16..........I can run ultras and do ironman...which is more than a lot of size 8 or 6 people can.

    but you automatically put a size 16 with unhealthy

  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭
    seren nos wrote (see)

    but you automatically put a size 16 with unhealthy

     

    i don't. i am saying the average size of the female population being 16 is unhealthy.

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭

    When I was a size 16 I was three stone heavier than I am now (I'm ten stone, size 12 now).

    That was surely an unhealthy amount of fat to be carrying

    .

  • Its not sticking your head in the sand but you cant say that if your female and a vertain size your unhealthy... are you saying the larger size your are the les healthy you are? Is somebody with a larger bone structure and can be below a size 12 is less health than a sise 10 with a small bone structure. ..
  • you can smoke and drink alcohol all day and avoid eating to remian a size 8.but is that healthier than a size 20 woman who walks several miles a day.............

  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    ah, big-boned. we're getting all the excuses now.

     

  • One of the issues with an average size being 16 is that a lot of people are therefore going to be a lot more than size 16. Of course a bigger person could quite easily be fitter than a thinner one, but it's probably not overstating the case to say that someone a size 20 probably doesn't do that much exercise or eat that healthily.



    There will always be exceptions and outliers. That's why God invented the Normal Distribution curve and why everyone has got an Uncle Monty who smoked 60 fags a day and died in his sleep at 95.
  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    women's sizing is strange as well, and very inconsistent.

    there has to be a huge variation due to height.

    i imagine a 5'2" size 16 had a hugely different bodyshape to someone approaching 6' and wearing a size 16. 

     

  • Well yes...... so should that 6' be made to feel that she is large or fat? Unhealthy because she is a size 16?
  • skottyskotty ✭✭✭

    As Johnny pointed out there are always exceptions and outliers.

     

  • Ill slide it in the bug boned excuse file
  • If I was size 16 I would be obese no question. I'm not a size 16 and I'm not obese. I am however a size 6 and not in the least bit unhealty. I run, I swim, I cycle and I play hockey. I'm fairly sure my legs meet in the middle. I have issues with the arms on clothing not being big enough. My limbs do not resemble match sticks.

    When I left school I was a size 10, I weigh the same today and am a size 6. I struggle with finding clothes small enough to fit me. I'm not quite 5'4" I'm certainly not unhealthy.

    I always thought a size 14 was engineered to reflect the 'avarage' size.

     

  • Marilyn Monroe was not a size 16, even by the standards of the day.

    She was 5'5" tall and weighed between 120 - 140lbs, her waist was reputed to be 22"; her hips and bust 36". Though as her weight was never a constant how her vital statistics can be a constant is anyones guess.

    Still, if you look at photo's of her, she was cuvry but in no way large or fat. I'm sure that her waist was artificially small, probably as the fashion of the day was to wear tight waisted corsets. I'm no expert. I've had to lace many a lady into their corsets though. Does make a big difference. 

Sign In or Register to comment.