Okay, now that I have set myself up for an extended trip to the proverbial dog house, I might as well speak my mind. Here it is. The oddities in female clothing nearly all point to one thing: Female vanity. There I said it.
If you have read my previous post (scroll down) about male sizes, you remember that we ended by discussing feet and shoe sizes, so that is a good place to begin the discussion of the feminine gender, their vanity and their attire. Let’s pick up where we left off: Shoes.
Imagine a man and a woman who have the exact same size foot and they can wear each other’s shoes. If you peak inside his shoe and notice it is a size 9, her size is 7 ½. Now how do you explain that with anything other than female vanity?
Note: Fun foot facts: 1) 90% of women wear the wrong size shoe 2) The largest size man’s shoe has been a size 37. 3) High heels make your feet look smaller. (Perhaps the previous fellow should have tried that)
Now let’s examine dress sizes. When I decided to write this article, I asked five women what they thought the ideal measurements for women are. When I averaged them out, then rounded off to the nearest whole number, the ladies told me the ideal female measurements are 35-23-35. My sister, Carol, said the ideal waist size is a 19, so she brought the average down, but she was 67 years old at the time, and that certainly qualified her to have her own opinion.
Then I asked several guys the same question. They thought the ideal size for women’s breasts was somewhere around a 46. As long as we were willing to discuss boobs like that they were too giddy to waste time discussing the waist or hips. But, I must stay on topic.
If you will allow me to examine the ideal female body, as my lady friends identified it, I would argue that her dress size ought to reflect one of the three primary measurements: In this case 35, 23, 35. What could be any easier than that? If you go by the breasts or hips, her dress would be a size 35; or if you went by the waist size, she would wear a size 23; or if we added them all up, she would wear a size 93. Even though that would make perfect sense, I cannot imagine any woman, especially one with “an ideal body” who would want to don a dress, sized 93!!!
Regardless of all of the careful measurements, none of that is good enough to identify dress sizes. For reasons only known to secret intellectuals of generations gone by, somebody in the faded pages of history decided that the dress that fits the average size woman is a 10, not a 93, as logic would suggest.
Once again this attracts the indisputable accusation of female vanity. In fact according to the Seattle Times women are even willing to pay more for clothes that are inaccurately labeled. They call it “Vanity sizing”.
The average sized woman wears a dress sized 10, but the average size man wears a suit, size 40. WE'RE NOT FOUR TIMES AS BIG! If the average sized man was really four times as big as the average sized woman, then when they go out on a date they would look a lot like the charming couple in this picture.
That might work out fine for a dinner date, but it would probably mean couples would never go bowling or dancing.
Do you still need more proof? The smallest size man's suit, before he has to shop in the boys department, is usually a size 32; but, the smallest size pants, before a smallish woman shops in the girls department, is size 0….. ZERO? ZERO? How the heck can anybody be a size zero? Zero equals nothing! She is certainly a heck of a lot more than that!
If women are going to refer to themselves by the sizes as indicated, why does anybody even bother identifying their measurements in the first place? I guess it is so the giddy guys will have a civilized way to refer to their upper body parts. I suppose it is possible that some of the more “interesting” ladies don’t like it when college guys say magumbos, sweater stretchers, milk pillows, mama’s melons, 4 hands-full, fun bags, big Berthas, B1 & B2, bumpers, coconuts, Thelma and Louise, the girls, mosquito bites, Lavern and Shirley, Winnebagos, Volvos or any one of a hundred other nick-names.
That seems unfair to me. If women want to distort the truth, why should the fellows be held to high standards?
Next up! The undies!
What say you?
be sure to keep up with my blog about family finances.