LogFAQs > #975905047

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, Database 12 ( 11.2023-? ), Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicSup with women's pants not having adequate pockets, still?
Gremlynn
09/06/23 7:45:51 PM
#11:


PraetorXyn posted...
Id say a combination of Big Purse and tiny pockets being seen as more fashionable on womens clothing.

Tangential subject, but why are womens clothing sizes so stupid? For men, pants are just a waist measurement and a leg measurement, and they come in regular, slim, and relaxed, etc. For womens pants, their size is a magic number that doesnt mean anything, with discriminators like petite etc. stuck after it sometimes. I know so many women who complain about clothes not fitting properly, so what theyre doing obviously isnt working.

fun fact, men's pants sizes are just as fucking stupid because the actual measurement is NEVER what it says it is. depending on brand the same 32w/32l slim fit might be just right, falling off, or cutting me in half. Fuck even the same size, fit, AND BRAND, if it's a different fucking color has a different actual fit. And these are allegedly ACTUAL FUCKING MEASUREMENTS.

This is actually MORE infuriating to me than "this brand's idea of the random number-scale for sizing is different from this brand's!" because IT'S A LITERAL FUCKING MEASUREMENT ON THE SAME FIT AND BRAND HOW IS IT DIFFERENT WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?!

---
"Now, was that civilized? No, clearly not. Fun, but in no sense civilized."
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1