4 ms·
A major problem with this is that the "size" generally refers to the size of the person it goes on, not the actual measurements of the clothing. For instance,
by araneae 16y ago
A major problem with this is that the "size" generally refers to the size of the person it goes on, not the actual measurements of the clothing. For instance, a size small "boyfriend" sweater probably has similar dimensions to an XL form fitting sweater, because it's intended to be worn large.
And what if you're buying something with elastic, like leggings? Anyone can get a ruler and see they the waistband is 15 inches, but that information is completely useless if you're trying to decide which one to buy.
Sure, size inflation happens, but legislating that the dimensions of clothing be declared actually defeats the purpose of sizing, which is to tell you generally who should be wearing it.
This is not like the nutrition labels on food. You can't tell how many calories are in a food by looking at it. You CAN tell how large a waistband is with a ruler. Legislating on this would make things very difficult on both clothing manufacturers and clothing purchasers. And it's only misleading to people who don't own a ruler, which I think is a fair burden to place on the consumer.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago>>Personally I think the best solution is to make it a matter of law that the sizing be accurate. >legislating that the dimensions of clothing be declared actually defeats the purpose of sizing He said what you said he didn't but should have AFAICS. He didn't say that you had to measure the circumference of the waistband in a pair of trousers just the size of a persons waist that the trousers were made for. >And it's only misleading to people who don't own a ruler, which I think is a fair burden to place on the consumer. You seem to be suggesting that when purchasing clothing online one should buy all the clothes, measure them yourself and then try on the ones that are the right size. Or that in a store one should measure the clothes on the rack to find the right size and then try that on. As the manufacturer produces the clothing to a specific size and has already designed the article to fit a particularly body size would it not be easier if they honestly labelled the size the clothing had been made for instead. Do you really think that fraudulent retail should be allowed because people are able to test things for themselves. Tins of tuna with dolphin meat in that was labelled "dolphin friendly" - are they OK? People can simply do a DNA test and determine the species of animal the flesh comes from, no?
- cperciva 16y agoTins of tuna with dolphin meat in that was labelled "dolphin friendly" - are they OK? People can simply do a DNA test and determine the species of animal the flesh comes from, no? As far as I'm aware, "dolphin un-friendly" fisheries never actually chop up dolphins and can them. It's just a matter of whether dolphins are accidentally killed during the fishery.
- euccastro 16y agoAnd you'd have a hard time selling mammal meat as oily fish.
- fauigerzigerk 16y agoYou are obscuring the difference between not declaring exact sizes and declaring false sizes.
- araneae 16y agoA 36" pair of pants are meant for guys with a 36" waist. Some of these pants are meant to hang around your butt. Some are meant to hug tightly to your waist. If you measure the waists of those pants, they will differ. That does not mean the size is false.