Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Women's clothing sizes are...... [Oleander] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have the same problem with pants. Muscular legs, skinny waist. I suppose it's fairly common among female triathletes. If I go by waist size, I can't pull the pants up over my thighs. If they fit my legs, the pants are too baggy in the waist. Lately I've been going for pants that stretch a bit, and simply tightening up my belt so that they stay on. I wouldn't even care about the numbers if I could find something that actually fit.

If only I could live in split shorts and pyjama pants all the time. That would be the life.

http://lesliesexton.wordpress.com
Quote Reply
Re: Women's clothing sizes are...... [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well, i'm 5'4'' and a touch under 120. if she is fairly muscular, she probably wears my size. what company? (note: i am bizarly narrow-hipped, but other than that fairly normal sized)

some companies have better size charts. i've made good use of the online victoria secret catalogue which has a lot of normal clothing
Quote Reply
Re: Women's clothing sizes are...... [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Actually, what I found a few years ago is that one's size number is inversely proportional to the amount of money one spends on an item.

At one point, I was wearing size 14 K-Mart jeans, size 10 or 12 outfits from The Limited, size 8 dresses from Casual Corner, and my graduation dress, from a really expensive boutique, was a size 4 (four, not a typo).



"Real winners aren't content with yesterday's victories"
Quote Reply

Prev Next