I’m so frustrated by clothing sizes. You know the drill–one designer’s 3 is another designer’s 0 is another designer’s 8. But what is up with this trend of SUPERTINY sizes? Banana Republic started selling size 00 in dresses and pants this year. THAT’S DOUBLE ZERO! Like how ridiculously small do you have to be to be smaller than “nothing” (literally)?
Rachel is in London right now, and I begged her to get me something from TopShop–aka “The Happiest Place on Earth”–and when she asked me what size I wore, I got all sorts of confused. Is UK 6 a US 2? But H&M sells size 4 which is a US 2 (I think). I looked at their website and saw that they too sold a size 4, which I assumed was the size I needed. But upon looking at my old TopShop stuff, looks like I’m a 6 and the size 4s are a completely new phenomenon–one that is disturbing quite a few people. How small is too small? Are retailers pandering to a thin-obsessed culture?
Granted, there is a huge tween market to be selling to–females stuck somewhere between being a girl and being a woman, their bodies in all sorts of awkward proportions. But I gotta say, walking into a store like Abercrombie (the tween line of Abercrombie & Fitch) and seeing minuscule size 10s with leg pant widths that do not even span the with of a dollar bill kinda disturbs me. Looking at the sales girls, all of 15 or 16 years of age wearing microscopic miniskirts and flimsy tank tops–I just scream in my head “WHY ARE THESE YOUNG GIRLS DRESSING LIKE ADULTS?!”–trying to imitate celebs like Nicole Richie. I dunno, there just seems to be something wrong with gangly bodies squeezed into tiny tiny hookers-in-training gear. But hey, if there’s a market for children’s beauty pagents, I guess there’s a slightly disturbed market for super-young sexy clothes.