It's interesting living 18 years without having to share hardly a thing, then suddenly being expected to get along swimmingly with whoever the random person you're paired with is.
It's a beautiful thing when it works out amazingly. It's never happened for me though. That's not to say that I don't love my roommates. I do, always have, always will. But every year I feel like I've fought some big conflict with a person I'm living with at the time.
But I've seen it work. When K lived with random people, he and his military bound roommate got along like none other. They watched all the same TV shows and introduced each other to the music each of them liked and within 3 months were singing along with the other's music and even having mini dance parties. I was the witness to this dynamic. There was S, the military IT major. D, the token Asian who everyone picked on. Then there was P, the pharm school guy. K and P hit it off originally - their mutual geekiness brought them together, but it was S and K that forged the strongest bond.
It's nice being able to see that those types of bonds are possible between roommates.
I had a really weird flashback to that today. My boyfriend, B, and his co-worker B (let's call him BMD) hit it off as soon as they started working together. B and BMD bonded initially over TV. Now they've realized they both share the same shitty taste in music. When that song came on, they both just started dancing. They've serenaded me, drinking in the backseat of my car. They're thinking about moving in together and I can just see them being exactly like K and S. It makes me happy to think that I can visit them next year and, oh, I dunno, I'll accidentally walk in on them playing a Taylor Swift song on Rock Band. And then they'll actually fairly justify it!
I haven't had much luck with roommates. It's never been absolutely horrible, but it's never been that perfect experience. But that's okay. I'll manage by living vicariously through other's perfect pairings.
5.01.2012
1.11.2012
Sizing You Up
I don't shop at Hollister. Not because I am against the brand or I don't like their styles - I do like some, and frequently shop at one of the company's affiliates, American Eagle (but stray away from their other, Abercrombie and Fitch). I don't shop there simply because I can't fit into their clothes. You might think I'm joking, but I assure you, I'm not. It's rather silly because, as I mentioned, I love to shop at American Eagle and, obviously, I wouldn't shop there unless I fit into their clothes. And, at their store, I can, quite easily. I practically live in their jeans (oh, I'm such a fool for that marketing campaign). But Hollister? I must not be their demographic.
Let's throw a few facts out here first, shall we? I am 5 feet, 6 inches and hover between 135 and 145. We'll stay with 145 to favor the companies. My waist is around 26 and my hips are 38. I'm a 32D and I've got curves in back too. Look up hourglass figure in the dictionary and I'm fairly certain you'll see my picture. Positive self-image? Most definitely. Now then, I wear a medium sized shirt and 6-8 jeans. This includes the 7 in juniors styles and the 27-29 range of designer brand style sizing. And at American Eagle, I fit this perfectly. I have only medium shirts and dresses from there and both 6 and 8 pants - depending on the style.
But at Hollister? I can't fit my rear into their size 9 jeans. My boobs pop out of their medium shirts - and the large shirts for that matter. Their large so so soft comfy sweatpants don't cover my crack (oh Hollister, if only your sweatpants covered my rump, you'd have all my money forever) (Omg, they have a pair that do now and they're so wonderful and soft and were half off! Yay!). And it goes beyond that. While sometimes (NOT all the time, darn you and your utilitarian guarding of your sweatpants styles, darn you!) extended sizes are offered online, in store size 9 and L are the largest sizes you'll find. But XS and even XXS are plentiful.
So look, I know I'm not overweight. I'm comfortable with my weight and my proportions (except that one time when I was 16 and my grandmother told me I had "child-bearing hips"). I'm not here to critique Hollister's practices. They're running a business and their business model is working for them. But that doesn't mean I won't question it.
Did you know, a size 0 today would have worn a 14 in the late 30s and an 8 in the late 60s? Vanity sizing is becoming a huge issue in our society (take a peek at the infographic on that link). So...that's kind of why I refuse to get mad at Hollister for not carrying my size. Because who's to say what is my size? In America, we don't have a standard for measuring clothing sizes. And while it's not as big of an issue for men (or so my experience has been when shopping with male relatives/friends/SOs), it's a huge issue for women.
And then throw the whole issue that the average American woman is a size 14 (or has it changed since I last heard? I'm afraid I couldn't find an authority on this) and we're just confusing everyone. Is that a size 14 now or a size 14 in the 80s? Wouldn't that be about a 20 by now? Would they have even made clothes for what today we call plus sized women back in the 40s? Does the plus size designation encourage size vanity (different from vanity sizing)?
I happened to purchase a skirt and a cardigan at a secondhand store a couple months back. The two items I purchased were from Hollister. They're both larges, but were in with the rest of the mediums. The skirt has an elastic waist and, well, fits just about perfect. The cardigan....let's just say, it's a good thing I plan on only wearing it open. I was kind of bothered by seeing that they were size L. I'll own up to it. Despite all my image positivity, I wasn't comfortable buying large sizes. I'm a medium. Medium on top, medium on bottom. Not a large. But in the 80s, would I have been a large? Could I have been a large? Or would the general size designations have shifted as well? A 14 would be the start of the larges and a 10 the mediums and a 4 the smalls?
It's a slippery slope that we're on, and I really think it needs to stop. Most other countries have standard sizes which surprisingly aren't too different from ours. If we could just have the clothing industry conform to one standard, it would make life so much easier.
And I could wear medium sweatpants from Hollister until the end of time.
Let's throw a few facts out here first, shall we? I am 5 feet, 6 inches and hover between 135 and 145. We'll stay with 145 to favor the companies. My waist is around 26 and my hips are 38. I'm a 32D and I've got curves in back too. Look up hourglass figure in the dictionary and I'm fairly certain you'll see my picture. Positive self-image? Most definitely. Now then, I wear a medium sized shirt and 6-8 jeans. This includes the 7 in juniors styles and the 27-29 range of designer brand style sizing. And at American Eagle, I fit this perfectly. I have only medium shirts and dresses from there and both 6 and 8 pants - depending on the style.
But at Hollister? I can't fit my rear into their size 9 jeans. My boobs pop out of their medium shirts - and the large shirts for that matter. Their large so so soft comfy sweatpants don't cover my crack (oh Hollister, if only your sweatpants covered my rump, you'd have all my money forever) (Omg, they have a pair that do now and they're so wonderful and soft and were half off! Yay!). And it goes beyond that. While sometimes (NOT all the time, darn you and your utilitarian guarding of your sweatpants styles, darn you!) extended sizes are offered online, in store size 9 and L are the largest sizes you'll find. But XS and even XXS are plentiful.
So look, I know I'm not overweight. I'm comfortable with my weight and my proportions (except that one time when I was 16 and my grandmother told me I had "child-bearing hips"). I'm not here to critique Hollister's practices. They're running a business and their business model is working for them. But that doesn't mean I won't question it.
Did you know, a size 0 today would have worn a 14 in the late 30s and an 8 in the late 60s? Vanity sizing is becoming a huge issue in our society (take a peek at the infographic on that link). So...that's kind of why I refuse to get mad at Hollister for not carrying my size. Because who's to say what is my size? In America, we don't have a standard for measuring clothing sizes. And while it's not as big of an issue for men (or so my experience has been when shopping with male relatives/friends/SOs), it's a huge issue for women.
And then throw the whole issue that the average American woman is a size 14 (or has it changed since I last heard? I'm afraid I couldn't find an authority on this) and we're just confusing everyone. Is that a size 14 now or a size 14 in the 80s? Wouldn't that be about a 20 by now? Would they have even made clothes for what today we call plus sized women back in the 40s? Does the plus size designation encourage size vanity (different from vanity sizing)?
I happened to purchase a skirt and a cardigan at a secondhand store a couple months back. The two items I purchased were from Hollister. They're both larges, but were in with the rest of the mediums. The skirt has an elastic waist and, well, fits just about perfect. The cardigan....let's just say, it's a good thing I plan on only wearing it open. I was kind of bothered by seeing that they were size L. I'll own up to it. Despite all my image positivity, I wasn't comfortable buying large sizes. I'm a medium. Medium on top, medium on bottom. Not a large. But in the 80s, would I have been a large? Could I have been a large? Or would the general size designations have shifted as well? A 14 would be the start of the larges and a 10 the mediums and a 4 the smalls?
It's a slippery slope that we're on, and I really think it needs to stop. Most other countries have standard sizes which surprisingly aren't too different from ours. If we could just have the clothing industry conform to one standard, it would make life so much easier.
And I could wear medium sweatpants from Hollister until the end of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)