Size Double 0 - The new skinny

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-thin19aug19,0,5082240.story?coll=la-home-entertainment

The skinny on Hollywood
Yes, bony actresses are sometimes targeted for ridicule in the media, but don't be fooled -- the pressure to look thin is fiercer than ever.


One major costume designer says that when looking for clothes for actresses, she can hardly find any in size 0 -- "They're all sold out."

"Look at the cast of the TV shows, they're not even 0, they're double 0," says Min. "The competition to be thin, I've never seen anything like it."

Perhaps it's a sign of Hollywood's readjusted eye that whenever an average-size woman -- a Jennifer Hudson or an America Ferrera -- bursts into the limelight, there's the predictable magazine frenzy over robust women who still manage to be successful, who are not going to commit hari-kari over being a size 10. Of course, in the cases of Hudson and Ferrara, their curves were specific to the roles they broke out in -- in fact they became a shorthand for their character's feistiness, for their willingness to defy the expected norms of their environments.

Pretty Then:

Pretty now:

:rofl:

measurement chart in our fitting room said :
sz 10 ....30-22-30

I don;t see many 22 inch waists these days :) and most implants are way more than 30" :rofl:

It's all just an illusion, girls :)

A size 12:

:rofl:

:-) She's normal and pretty.


The new norm for celebrity women is to have cleavage that looks like this:

:hi:

Especially her eyes.

Apparently, she went to an auction of Marilyn Monroe's dresses. She took a tape measure to the mannequin and said "If I were that fat I'd kill myself". This about Marilyn Monroe!

I was 5'1" and weighed anywhere from 100 to 110 pounds. Now, that's small in anybody's book, I'd say. Wore size 32C bra, so was a bit "busty." I wore, depending on manufacturer, size 4-5 to 7-8 and occasionally, the tag might even say size 9-10. They've changed the sizing to make women THINK they're smaller than they are. There was no such thing as size 2, 0, 00 then. I'd venture a guess that 60s size 5 is now 0 or 00.

http://www1.bloomingdales.com/about/shopping/sizingchart.jsp


Anyone have very old catalogs to compare to that? Some of those sizes look to me to be about three inches larger in waist and hip measurements than they were a couple of decades ago.

are loose, I dug out an old pair of American made 501's (yes, really old) and I can barely fasten them. I also have an old pair of 34" Dockers and they are snug too.

5'3"....weighed between 102 -112 in my teen to 20-something years. I was, just as you say, a size 4-5, 7-8 (usually), on the rare occassion a 9-10.

Now, I'm pushing 50....bore three children, weigh 126....and I bought a skirt the other day that was a size 0. I told my kids (again) that I never EVER fit into a size '0' when I was a teenager - there's no way that I should fit into one now (unless, of course, they've changed their sizing system)....which they OBVIOUSLY have.

...but I KNOW I'm not the same size I was in high school 45 years ago. Sizes aren't anything like they used to be.

and other woman sure don't appeal to me in that way...BUT for the life of me I can't see what men see in those walking sticks. Back in the fifties when I was growing up Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe were the ideal women. And if you look at pictures of what they looked like back then and look at the sticks walking around now there is no comparison...period.

and other woman sure don't appeal to me in that way...BUT for the life of me I can't see what men see in those walking sticks. Back in the fifties when I was growing up Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe were the ideal women. And if you look at pictures of what they looked like back then and look at the sticks walking around now there is no comparison...period.

y'know what? My husband still thinks I'm incredibly sexy with my new curves and my Buddha belly. Screw Hollywood, I'm happy to be a healthy figured young woman. Not fat, not obese, just...normal. :)

ps- It's all b/c I actually started to eat like a normal person... :o

:P

(For you babies, that was the skeleton that Jack Lalane used to demonstrate.)

Skinnier than average.

And size 10 is not average in the US. The average American woman is 5'4" 165 lbs and usually about a size 14.

And beauty standards are beauty standards - regardless of what they are, women are expected to strive toward them and maintain them as a prerequisite for social acceptance.

It's just another patriarchal control mechanism.

agree...this focus on beauty standards is a way to control women.

And let's be serious here for a moment - Marylin Monroe is always dragged out as the epitome of a non-skinny beautiful famous woman.

She was not a large woman. She had a shape for certain, but I imagine she'd be about a size 4-6 in today's nonsensical clothing sizes.

Monroe, who was neither large nor FAT, was actually a size 12-14 back in her day. You can bet your boots that measurement standards for sizing clothing have changed since then, and the number massage is all about vanity.

The OP's picture examples of "then" and "now" show what I think is actually a pretty comparable degree of slimness. But let Jolie lose another 10 pounds and she will be in the anorexic review. I personally think she'd look gorgeous and super-womanly with another (solid) 15 or 20 on her.

Women dress more to impress other women than for men..

I recall reading a survey some time back that found jeans and a tee shirt were the number two or three sexy outfit in the eyes of most men. That is pretty well in line with my own tastes.

is the world coming to?
it may be a shallow attempt at a political statement- but this Linkin Park video touches on that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sgycukafqQ

been adjusted to make average women think they're smaller than they really are.

And when I go browsing the discount racks I find that the only sizes left are 0, 2, 4, and 6. Maybe an occasional 8, but I can assure you that every single 10, 12, and 14 is gone quite quickly, because those are the sizes normal people actually wear.

Sometimes I'll rant at the sales persons in a store, even though I know they have nothing at all to do with the buying decisions, about how many of each size is actually purchased. Invariably they roll their eyes, because they know exactly what the problem is. The Hollywood skinnies are the rarities. Those of us in the real world do not wear a 0, let alone a double 0.

It isn't impossible but it seems that some stores don't carry smaller sizes in certain styles. I must shop at different stores than you do.

and Petite Sophisticate just to name two. They will have sale racks packed full of sizes 0, 2, and 4. In fact, Petite Sophisticate seems almost never to carry clothing as large as a size 12, and those are cut very skimpy. It's quite weird. I'm generally a 12 (sometimes a 10, sometimes a 14 depending on if I've lost or gained some weight and the exact cut of something) and the 12s at Petite Sophisticate are always very tight and they almost never have a 14. And for those of you who don't know, in this case "petite" refers to sizes for shorter women, generally 5'4" and under. I'm 5'1 1/2.

Even some of the regular department stores, such as Macy's or Dillards tend to be overstocked with the eensy-teensy sizes at sale time.

http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-04-19/whitford-vanitysizing/





As I said in reply 15 above, it looks like the current sizes are at least a couple inches larger in hip and waist measurements than they were a couple of decades ago.

Where I used to get a size 10 in pants, all of a sudden now I'm swimming in a 10 off the rack. Sometimes I'd also wear 8's depending on how I wanted the pants to fit. Now, even a size 8 is usually too big. I look at the waist size on the 6's I buy now, and they sure look like my 8's and 9/10's. I hate this vanity sizing. I don't like to spend a lot of time clothes shopping, but now I have to try on every pair of pants I get because you just never know if something is going to have the vanity sizing or run true to size.

she was watching the ubiquitous talking TV, and the voice was saying: Back in the 1890s, the ideal woman was 5'4", and weighed 140 pounds. And she was considered pretty!" In the last panel Sylvia is talking back and saying "Where did we go wrong??"

There was another cartoon in this book about two Englishman who were inventing the home use bathroom scale. But one of them brought the other to his senses by saying "Oh NO, there will never be a time when people are that obsessed with their weight; it would be just too unseemly and vulgar"...:rofl:

YEEEEAAAAHHHHH!! That's what I'm looking for! MMMMmmmmm.... :yoiks:

It's gonna get even more "fun" as all those pro-ana dolts start getting into a position to influence this kind of thing en masse, as opposed to merely being influenced by it.

Then again, I've been seeing the term "skinnyfat" start showing up more lately, which I think I actually consider even more inane than "pro-ana." Ugh.

is used to describe a body type where a person is quite thin, but has very little muscle.

It's not a very nice thing to say, but it also isn't intended to mean "fat" - it means not well-muscled.

The sense I'm reacting to is another one from the one you describe (which annoys me too, but mainly because of the wording. Why not just say poorly-muscled instead of throwing one of the more ridiculously emotive terms of this day and age around?). I'm an admin/moderator on another multi-topic forum with a five-digit user base; a few sections of it have some truly fucked-up body image issues, which was something of an eye-opener for me.

I've seen it used to describe people who are at (or, more usually, below) a healthy weight, but are still "mentally fat" because um er uh just because. I guess some folks started encountering the term and proceeded to use it as a way to discourage being content with one's weight - after all, if you buy into that, you're fat in your mind no matter how healthy your body is.

As I said: ugh.

:rofl:

I know I shouldn't laugh, but I can't help it......

I thought it said double D. :evilgrin:

Mens sixes are in inches, womens sizes are... confusing.