People Twitter

5182 readers

1667 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a tweet or similar
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

885

Sizing pants: men's vs women's (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Bullshit! I wear size 34 pants with a belt to keep them on and they are 36.25in around.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

100% men's clothing are vanity sized and it's worked so well men didn't notice.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I wear 33W pants but they measure 36" around the belt loops. This isn't the result of vanity sizing, though - men used to wear pants that were very high-waisted, but as pants got lower over the decades they kept using the "nominal" waist measurement so that men would still know what size to buy, since the circumference around the hips (where most pants are cut today) is about 3" ~~less~~ more than the circumference of what used to be the waist.

Pleats are another useless holdover from the high-waisted era, as they made it easier for pants to expand down over the hips and thighs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I don't know, maybe your pants are half an inch thick, and you overlooked accounting for that

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

you don't wear your pants at your waist

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and there is no dimension on these pants that is 34 inches.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

yes, because you measure at your waist but you don't wear your pants at your waist