Shit that annoys you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KQ

The arbitrary sizing of women's clothing and vanity sizing.

If a man has a 34 inch waist he wears a 34 in pants.

If a woman has a 24 inch waist who know what the fuck she wears.

---

I agree, but you said it weird.
If a man has a 34” waist, he’ll find a stack of pants that has 8-10 corresponding length options, in either 1” or 2” increments. It’s a wonder any man has ever had to roll up a pair of pants.
If a woman has a 34” waist, she might be a size 18. Or she might be a “Women’s Large”. Or she could be a 12 if the brand is less focused on skinny models. Or she could be a Medium if she’s in the South. As far as length goes, if she’s tall, she’ll show a lot of ankle, if she’s short, she’ll need a “Petite” option. If she’s under 5” 2” tall, she’ll mostly just buy Capris and her pants will look the same as the tall girl. When they hit middle age, they’ll just add $15 to the cost of every pair since it’ll be getting hemmed. And then she’ll transition into keeping the same pair forever because it’s so traumatic finding new ones.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I know TRG has been having issues, but DuckDuckGo on Android seems completely incapable of functioning with the site. Had to go back to Chrome. AND save my password in the browser to get around weird login issues. WTF?!?!? Those are two things I hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KQ

The arbitrary sizing of women's clothing and vanity sizing.

If a man has a 34 inch waist he wears a 34 in pants.

If a woman has a 24 inch waist who know what the fuck she wears.

---

NYT has an article about that today, is that what made you post? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/03/s...smid=url-share (gifted version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Name Redacted

Only if she's 5'3"

---

I see what you did there, Mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waveshello

I had forgotten about this part of living in Seattle
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4d2bc8ae7e.jpg

---

Interesting. I assumed it was mostly just the SLC Dist. center that was this full of jackassery.

I just got a package sent via USPS' newest slower than ever option, the 'Ground Advantage'. 2-5 days my ass.
It went Memphis, Denver, SLC, Reno, Sacramento, Reno, SLC, Jackson. Took 10 fucking days.
And it happens on 4 of 5 deliveries.
And JH has a hudge dead letter zone because if it gets sent to your PO box via UPS, Fedex or DHL. Odds are good it gets returned that day.

It annoys me.

How timely! No... I was shopping online for some new intimates (no longer have a Macy's in town) and had to do some measuring since my go to favorite is no longer available. I measured a 36 so naturally according to the site I was shopping on I was a 38. WTF? I've been a 36 my entire life why does 36 now equal 38?

And don't get me started on the whole vanity thing - I know what size I am. I don't suddenly need to be a size smaller. I'm not stupid. I know you just changed the tag.

From you article (thanks for the gift link):

Quote:

---

pants were not a part of the regular woman’s wardrobe until the 1960s.

---

I distinctly remember not being allowed to wear pants in a public elemetary school unless it was snowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained

...
I just got a package sent via USPS' newest slower than ever option, the 'Ground Advantage'. 2-5 days my ass..

---

I used that 'Ground Advantage' once and never fucking again. Sent my mom's package 2 weeks in advance for mother's day, she still didn't get it on time. I saved 2 bucks vs priority and they guaranteed delivery 2 days earlier than Priority, which I thought hmm...ok, I'll give it a shot. I'm wrong a lot but this was x10. I think it made 15 stops across several states east of here when it was supposed to just go straight south to NM. Delivered 4 days after the guaranteed delivery date.

Don't do it ppl!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KQ

The arbitrary sizing of women's clothing and vanity sizing.

If a man has a 34 inch waist he wears a 34 in pants.

If a woman has a 24 inch waist who know what the fuck she wears.

---

Across time, I'm pretty sure when a woman has a 24 inch waist she can wear whatever the fuck she wants.

At that size there's a chance it'd be ok if she wore nothing :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

Across time, I'm pretty sure when a woman has a 24 inch waist she can wear whatever the fuck she wants.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gravitylover

At that size there's a chance it'd be ok if she wore nothing :shrug:

---

Come on guys.... quit being such pigs. 24 is not that unusual or necessarily skinny esp. in young girls. It is what it is and a number I picked from my youth.

Which creates a similar annoyance. My 11yo daughter is slim but not petite and average height. To fit her waist, the pant leg is knee length, to fit her inseam, the waist is triple her size and needs to be taken in. Same with so many tops - if it covers her arms it fits like a sack; fits her shoulders and it barely covers her navel. Glad I’m not a single parent and my wife can manage the fashion discussions that often result in tears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KQ

Come on guys.... quit being such pigs. 24 is not that unusual or necessarily skinny esp. in young girls. It is what it is and a number I picked from my youth.

---

Um, nope. Only 0.1% of the total pop of women and 1.0% of really active women have a waist 24" or less.

Quote:

---

24-Inch Waist for Women
The average waist size for American women is 35.6 inches. That means a 24-inch waist is almost a foot smaller than usual. And your waist would be smaller than 99.9% of the female population.


However, it’s important to remember that 3 out of 4 adult women in the US are overweight or obese. So does that mean a 24-inch waist is more attainable among a fit population?


A survey of women in the US Army, who are generally more fit, shows that their average waist size is 28.2 inches. And a 24-inch waist would still be very rare.


In fact, out of 2,208 women measured for this survey, only 24 had a waist size of 24 inches or less. That means only 1 out of 100 active women have a 24-inch waist.

---

So unusual and skinny would apply, unless you are a grown woman less than 4'8".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jm2e

I agree, but you said it weird.
If a man has a 34” waist, he’ll find a stack of pants that has 8-10 corresponding length options, in either 1” or 2” increments. It’s a wonder any man has ever had to roll up a pair of pants... TGR Forums

---

You would think this would work great. However, it seems the textile industry needs their tape measures calibrated. I have tried on many pants "my size" that were not my size.

I've had some good things to say about Xfinity. Only switched to them a few years back, maybe 5, but all was well till recently. Jacked up the bill, couldn't get anyone on the phone, just dealt with it. Then today they shut off the fucking internet, with no warning, for a "planned service maintenance" if it was planned, why no notice? Not like they don't know how to get in touch with me. Gf works from home in a health care role, can't just disappear offline, had to drop everything and scramble to the office. The ineptitude of these billion dollar companies is baffling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

Um, nope. Only 0.1% of the total pop of women and 1.0% of really active women have a waist 24" or less.




So unusual and skinny would apply, unless you are a grown woman less than 4'8".

---

Okay.... correction meant to type 26" but I will say is that things where different back in the 70s/early 80s and the "average size" of American women was a lot smaller.

I am 5'9" back when I was 18 I had a 26" waist. I have the belly chain I used to wear to prove it but we digress from the real issue which is that clothes should have uniform sizing that is not arbitrary.

I dated a gal for a year so who was 4’11” and just under 100 pounds . Sometimes a size 0 was too big. This is an old rant.
We nicknamed her “spinner”, (of course), and she had a good sense of humor and thought it was funny.

Seems if you use two dimensional sizing (not a perfect descriptor, but apt) to describe a three dimensional shape, that’s just gonna happen. Men are typically straighter so that works better, but it still isn’t spot on. They just care less if these jeans make their ass look big, for all the shitty reasons you’ve already implied.

But without all those shitty reasons we’d still have a problem on our hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plugboots

I dated a gal for a year so who was 4’11” and just under 100 pounds . Sometimes a size 0 was too big. This is an old rant.
We nicknamed her “spinner”, (of course), and she had a good sense of humor and thought it was funny.

---

Spinner was a nickname we used for silly underclass girls in HS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiBo

You would think this would work great. However, it seems the textile industry needs their tape measures calibrated. I have tried on many pants "my size" that were not my size.

---

I have multiple pairs of pants that are the same size, same cut, from the same manufacturer, and bought around the same time that still fit completely different.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Same. And that manufacturer is Carhartt.

Insomnia annoys me.

Coaching a bunch of 12 year olds playing on a travel baseball team. League has 7 teams in it, all about 20-45 minutes away from each other. Some of these games start at 8:30pm - which means if you're the ones traveling then you don't get home until after 11pm. IMO this is too late for grade 6 kids. It is, as they say, annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plugboots

We nicknamed her “spinner”, (of course)

---

Okay, I'll admit it: I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

Okay, I'll admit it: I don't get it.

---

Mmmm
Spinners. Women so much smaller than you that they can sit and spin. Or do other really fun sex gymnastics.

Actually, more like a propeller in front of a plane, and they’re head or feet don’t hit.