Thanks for your concern............

[swamp]

www.scarymommy.com/thanks-for-your-concern-but-my-fat-ass-is-fine/?utm_source=FB

Thoughts?

[milee]

It's interesting to me as a businessperson that retailers haven't done more to offer flattering clothing in the most common range of sizes; the article says that the average size is now 14-16, so it's odd that retailers aren't targeting their lines and marketing to those sizes.

And... especially since this last election cycle, the already-pretty-nasty internet has gotten even nastier.  It's just plain rude to make a snarky comment about someone's clothing being a "tarp."  I'm hoping we're at the outside of the pendulum swing in regards to people just being publicly nasty without other people calling them out for it.

[Lizard Queen]

Just lost my whole damn post.   My sister is probably 85 pounds.  Nobody thinks she's healthy.  She's one to more likely brag about her size than complain, though.  Clothes are designed to look better on skinnier people.  If designers get their heads out of their asses and design clothes that look good on those in the 14/16 range, they'd make some bank.

[quince]

I like scary mommy.

People are often assholes about weight under the thin veneer of "but it's unhealthy!" More often about women's weight then men's.  

I'm in better shape fat than I was thin- I have better endurance/wind. Luckily no one in my life gets on my fat ass about it.

How I EAT? We do talk about making better food choices. But that's because healthier food is healthier, not because it makes you thin.  If health is the goal, then the focus should be if a person eats well and exercises, not their BMI. (and if you aren't a person's parent, spouse, caretaker, or physician, the focus should be on MYOB.)

[Lizard Queen]

I'm healthier now than when I was lighter, too.  I do worry about my friend's daughter, though.   She's gained so much in the last few years, going from a bit plump to morbidly obese.  She's very happy now, but she will have problems when she's no longer in her 20's.

[MJ2.0]

14/16 doesn't have to be "fat". If you're tall, a 14/16 is a nice curvy figure.

Two of my favorite yogiis are Dana Falsetti and Jessamyn (shoot, I forget her last name). Big girls but strong and bendy AF!

[MJ2.0]

the focus always needs to be on HEALTH.

[swamp]

May 1, 2017 14:46:45 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

14/16 doesn't have to be "fat". If you're tall, a 14/16 is a nice curvy figure.

Two of my favorite yogiis are Dana Falsetti and Jessamyn (shoot, I forget her last name). Big girls but strong and bendy AF!

There's no way they can be healthy!!!!

One of my friends is a sensei, and runs some fitness classes from her dojo.  She is a bigger girl, strong, and curvy.    Some very thin women showed up at her dojo one day for a kickboxing class, did the "look her up and down" and smirked.  She heard them talking to each other how easy the class was going to be, no way the teacher could keep up with them.    The left about half way through, they couldn't keep up. 

[MJ2.0]

May 1, 2017 14:50:53 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 1, 2017 14:46:45 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

14/16 doesn't have to be "fat". If you're tall, a 14/16 is a nice curvy figure.

Two of my favorite yogiis are Dana Falsetti and Jessamyn (shoot, I forget her last name). Big girls but strong and bendy AF!

There's no way they can be healthy!!!!

One of my friends is a sensei, and runs some fitness classes from her dojo.  She is a bigger girl, strong, and curvy.    Some very thin women showed up at her dojo one day for a kickboxing class, did the "look her up and down" and smirked.  She heard them talking to each other how easy the class was going to be, no way the teacher could keep up with them.    The left about half way through, they couldn't keep up. 

The thing is, you rarely see/hear men criticizing each other about being fat. I've seen/heard guys offering up their own diet/workout tips with some encouragement. Why are women so quick to cut down other women?

[alabamagal]

I am 5'10" and large frame size.  In college I was at the bottom of the BMI scale for normal weight and wore a size 12.  I say that only to give you perspective on where I started.  I have no control over my height or frame size.  After 3 kids and keeping 10 lbs per kid, and then post-menopause thyroid issues, a few too many beers, not the best diet, no trying to get things under control, I am now size 18.  I would like to be a 14.

I hate clothes shopping because it is hard to find clothes that fit.  My tallness is all in my trunk, not my legs.  Finding a long sleeve shirt with cuffs is nearly impossible.  I bought a sweatshirt in 3x size and it was tight on my wrists!  I am not overweight in my wrists!

I was shopping today for a "mother of the groom" dress.  One site I was looking at had all thin models but had up to size 18.  The other site had women's sizes with models that look to be about my size.  I think I will buy something from them.  There were also some reviews from tall women who said that they were glad the dresses were long enough for them.  Another selling point

[mollyanna58]

My sister lost 35 pounds over a few months through diet and exercise.  People keep asking her if she's been ill.  I have an acquaintance who has lost a lot of weight over the past year.  I always wonder if she is sick, as if that's the only way someone would lose weight.

[quince]

Hah. My clothes actually fit better now that I'm rotund. Apparently my proportions at a lighter weight are exceedingly weird and not available off the rack (or they WERE, this was a decade ago, there might be clothes available now for the body type I was. )

[swamp]

Clothes never fit me. Normal weight, fat, in shape, out of shape.  I've never been "thin."   I don't think I could be without starving myself. 

I have broad shoulders, a long torso, and thick short legs. Think like a linebacker squashed down with an hourglass waist and boobs. Clothes shopping has always been a nightmare.

[alabamagal]

May 1, 2017 15:36:29 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

My sister lost 35 pounds over a few months through diet and exercise.  People keep asking her if she's been ill.  I have an acquaintance who has lost a lot of weight over the past year.  I always wonder if she is sick, as if that's the only way someone would lose weight.

I have known 2 guys who have lost weight in their 50s.  Neither were obese, just a few extra pounds around the middle.  For both of them, it really made their faces gaunt looking.  They were not "fat in the face" but they definitely lost weight there, so they did look older.  I don't think that is the look they were going for.  

[MJ2.0]

May 1, 2017 17:27:18 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

May 1, 2017 15:36:29 GMT -5 mollyanna58 said:

My sister lost 35 pounds over a few months through diet and exercise.  People keep asking her if she's been ill.  I have an acquaintance who has lost a lot of weight over the past year.  I always wonder if she is sick, as if that's the only way someone would lose weight.

I have known 2 guys who have lost weight in their 50s.  Neither were obese, just a few extra pounds around the middle.  For both of them, it really made their faces gaunt looking.  They were not "fat in the face" but they definitely lost weight there, so they did look older.  I don't think that is the look they were going for.  

Madonna comes to mind.

[weltschmerz]

Due to "vanity sizing", what manufacturers call a 14-16 today, used to be an 18-20 before.

[Anne_in_VA]

My sister has lost a ton of weight since last September and she looks awful.  She's been ill off and on and wasn't trying to lose, but has lost about 90 lbs.  She's 18 mos. younger than me but looks at least 5 years older now.  She was alawys heavy, but looks reallt gaunt.

[MJ2.0]

May 1, 2017 17:49:19 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Due to "vanity sizing", what manufacturers call a 14-16 today, used to be an 18-20 before.

Why can't we just do sizing the way men's sizing is done? Inseam, waist, hip... in inches.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2017 17:49:19 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Due to "vanity sizing", what manufacturers call a 14-16 today, used to be an 18-20 before.

Yep.  I weigh what I did when I graduated HS and I was a size 12 then.  I'm a size 8 now.  Silly.

I rarely buy clothes but I like the selection from Chico's sale racks- they're actually flattering to women over 40 in a broad range of sizes.

[alabamagal]

May 1, 2017 17:56:24 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

May 1, 2017 17:49:19 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Due to "vanity sizing", what manufacturers call a 14-16 today, used to be an 18-20 before.

Yep.  I weigh what I did when I graduated HS and I was a size 12 then.  I'm a size 8 now.  Silly.

I rarely buy clothes but I like the selection from Chico's sale racks- they're actually flattering to women over 40 in a broad range of sizes.

Darn, you just made me feel worse!

So let me do the math, I was 12 when I graduated high school, but if I was the same weight I would be an 8, so now I am 18, so I am +10 sizes, but really 5 sizes because they are only in even numbers.  Of course I am not counting the odd number "junior" sizes which I never really wore.

I was always tall for my age.  By the end of 6th grade I was 5'10" tall.  It seemed like I went from kid sizes to adult 9/10 and then 11/12 all at once.  And I remember my mom having to buy me adult shoes when I was a kid, and then having size 10 feet in 7th grade.  My mom was wondering what would happen if my feet never stopped growing (size 11 now).  My mom is on the petite size and she just didn't know what to do with me.

[hoops902]

May 1, 2017 17:55:33 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

May 1, 2017 17:49:19 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Due to "vanity sizing", what manufacturers call a 14-16 today, used to be an 18-20 before.

Why can't we just do sizing the way men's sizing is done? Inseam, waist, hip... in inches.

This is just one of many things I don't understand about women's clothes...how do you account for 2 people who are equally thin/fat/sized but one is 5'0" and one is 6'0"?

[Peace Of Mind]

May 2, 2017 8:44:10 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

May 1, 2017 17:56:24 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Yep.  I weigh what I did when I graduated HS and I was a size 12 then.  I'm a size 8 now.  Silly.

I rarely buy clothes but I like the selection from Chico's sale racks- they're actually flattering to women over 40 in a broad range of sizes.

Darn, you just made me feel worse!

So let me do the math, I was 12 when I graduated high school, but if I was the same weight I would be an 8, so now I am 18, so I am +10 sizes, but really 5 sizes because they are only in even numbers.  Of course I am not counting the odd number "junior" sizes which I never really wore.

I was always tall for my age.  By the end of 6th grade I was 5'10" tall.  It seemed like I went from kid sizes to adult 9/10 and then 11/12 all at once.  And I remember my mom having to buy me adult shoes when I was a kid, and then having size 10 feet in 7th grade.  My mom was wondering what would happen if my feet never stopped growing (size 11 now).  My mom is on the petite size and she just didn't know what to do with me.

Holy cow you are smart! 

I hate vanity sizing.  It makes it so difficult ordering on line.  And I would be touched if somebody was concerned over my fat ass.  I'm kind of getting one now that I've gained 7 lbs.  I'm totally keeping them! 

[hoops902]

May 1, 2017 14:25:07 GMT -5 milee said:

It's interesting to me as a businessperson that retailers haven't done more to offer flattering clothing in the most common range of sizes; the article says that the average size is now 14-16, so it's odd that retailers aren't targeting their lines and marketing to those sizes.

And... especially since this last election cycle, the already-pretty-nasty internet has gotten even nastier.  It's just plain rude to make a snarky comment about someone's clothing being a "tarp."  I'm hoping we're at the outside of the pendulum swing in regards to people just being publicly nasty without other people calling them out for it.

I wonder if some of the "marketing to those sizes" isn't impacted by the premise that it's simply harder to make things generically flattering for those sizes due to such differences in body types. As a general rule, the larger something gets, the more variety you get in the makeup of that size. I'll use men as an example in hopes that leads to me getting flamed a lot less, but I think the same probably applies to women (a size 16 who is very busty compared to a size 16 who is not). If you're a guy who wears a small t-shirt size...you probably look a lot like most every other guy who wears a small t-shirt size (assuming it fits you and you're not wearing shirts way too tight for you). If you're a guy who wears an XXL t-shirt size, you could have huge shoulders and chest because you work out, or you could have small shoulders and a big gut. It takes totally different cuts to make those things look good on those 2 different guys. You're probably also looking at a broader ranges of height, etc. 

So let's get to "average size"...what does "average" mean in this case? Is it the median, the mean, the mode? Those could mean very different things in terms of 14-16 being average. It could also be that for sizes 14-16 you need enough different cuts for enough different body shapes that the average size+cut is actually a completely different size (maybe a size 8 which has only 2 cuts or something).  Here's the part I'm sure will get me flamed...it's probably SUPER easy to make clothes for a size 2, or 4, or whatever.  You can throw a burlap sack on someone with great/fit body and they'll look good.  You can't throw a burlap sack on someone who's larger and expect that it's going to look good on them.  It HAS to be more work.  Using the t-shirt example above, I'm a tall guy with big shoulders...tossing a normal t-shirt on me looks terrible, there's just way too much fabric in the stomach area and has to be 2 sizes too big in the first place so it's long enough...so to actually get a good shirt I have to get a different size, athletic cut, plus it has to be a "tall" version.  I'm sure that's a lot more work than a manufacturer just spitting on "here's a small".

I'm going to guess there's also some chicken/egg logic going on with retailers.  I'm guessing they have some research that says size 14-16 don't do as much shopping in brick-and-mortar outlets as smaller sizes...which is probably 100% true.  But do they not do the shopping there because they don't want to...or because they've figured out it's useless to since they don't carry their sizes? 

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

May 4, 2017 12:40:11 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 1, 2017 17:55:33 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Why can't we just do sizing the way men's sizing is done? Inseam, waist, hip... in inches.

This is just one of many things I don't understand about women's clothes...how do you account for 2 people who are equally thin/fat/sized but one is 5'0" and one is 6'0"?

You buy petites or talls.  Only problem is if you happen to be a petite with long arms of legs.

I can wear women's clothes, but buy men's jackets.  To get the material I need in the shoulders, I need to buy a plus size.  Only problem with the plus size is that the cuff of the jacket is well above my wrists and the body is way too big.  Men's. Jackets fit in the shoulder and arms, but if it is long enough, might be tight in the hips.  I'll take that over constricted feeling shoulders.

You get creative....

[Opti]

I think sizes and fit vary a lot by manufacturer. Not too long ago there was a woman who took pics of herself in different sized clothes in her closet to show that sizes were just a number. I think the sizes varied from 6 to 16.

[MJ2.0]

May 4, 2017 12:56:10 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 1, 2017 14:25:07 GMT -5 milee said:

It's interesting to me as a businessperson that retailers haven't done more to offer flattering clothing in the most common range of sizes; the article says that the average size is now 14-16, so it's odd that retailers aren't targeting their lines and marketing to those sizes.

And... especially since this last election cycle, the already-pretty-nasty internet has gotten even nastier.  It's just plain rude to make a snarky comment about someone's clothing being a "tarp."  I'm hoping we're at the outside of the pendulum swing in regards to people just being publicly nasty without other people calling them out for it.

I wonder if some of the "marketing to those sizes" isn't impacted by the premise that it's simply harder to make things generically flattering for those sizes due to such differences in body types. As a general rule, the larger something gets, the more variety you get in the makeup of that size. I'll use men as an example in hopes that leads to me getting flamed a lot less, but I think the same probably applies to women (a size 16 who is very busty compared to a size 16 who is not). If you're a guy who wears a small t-shirt size...you probably look a lot like most every other guy who wears a small t-shirt size (assuming it fits you and you're not wearing shirts way too tight for you). If you're a guy who wears an XXL t-shirt size, you could have huge shoulders and chest because you work out, or you could have small shoulders and a big gut. It takes totally different cuts to make those things look good on those 2 different guys. You're probably also looking at a broader ranges of height, etc. 

So let's get to "average size"...what does "average" mean in this case? Is it the median, the mean, the mode? Those could mean very different things in terms of 14-16 being average. It could also be that for sizes 14-16 you need enough different cuts for enough different body shapes that the average size+cut is actually a completely different size (maybe a size 8 which has only 2 cuts or something).  Here's the part I'm sure will get me flamed...it's probably SUPER easy to make clothes for a size 2, or 4, or whatever.  You can throw a burlap sack on someone with great/fit body and they'll look good.  You can't throw a burlap sack on someone who's larger and expect that it's going to look good on them.  It HAS to be more work.  Using the t-shirt example above, I'm a tall guy with big shoulders...tossing a normal t-shirt on me looks terrible, there's just way too much fabric in the stomach area and has to be 2 sizes too big in the first place so it's long enough...so to actually get a good shirt I have to get a different size, athletic cut, plus it has to be a "tall" version.  I'm sure that's a lot more work than a manufacturer just spitting on "here's a small".

I'm going to guess there's also some chicken/egg logic going on with retailers.  I'm guessing they have some research that says size 14-16 don't do as much shopping in brick-and-mortar outlets as smaller sizes...which is probably 100% true.  But do they not do the shopping there because they don't want to...or because they've figured out it's useless to since they don't carry their sizes? 

I'd argue that women within the smaller size ranges have just as much variety in their shapes as well.

I am 5'7" with small boobs, substantial hips and thighs, and a butt.  Depending on where I shop I am a size 6, 8 or 10.  There are times where I've worn a small top and large pants.  Small tops always fit my bust but don't always fit my stomach/waist.  And don't get me started on pants.  Pretty much every single pair of pants I've ever owned has been very tight in the thigh and I'll get the gap in the back.  Buying swimwear is another fun activity.  Bathing suits are out of the question since I'm nowhere near the same size on my top and bottom, but I am not confident enough in my body to want to wear a bikini.  I could do tankinis, but the tops tend to ride up on me too much and the bottoms are still too revealing for my tastes.  I managed to find two tankinis a few years ago that work for me, and I just need to hang onto them until I can't wear them anymore.  And I still end up wearing a tank top over it all because they are still not ideal.  

It's not just the bigger women who have issues with buying things that make them look good.


ETA: the bolded is not true.  It also takes work to make smaller people look good.  NY&C has the (IMO) perfect women's dress shirt - darting with stretchy material.  I have bought MANY dress shirts over the years and they have the most flattering one hands down.

[WholeLottaNothin]

Dress shirts when you are busty, however, can be a nightmare.

[chiver78]

May 4, 2017 13:13:37 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

May 4, 2017 12:56:10 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I wonder if some of the "marketing to those sizes" isn't impacted by the premise that it's simply harder to make things generically flattering for those sizes due to such differences in body types. As a general rule, the larger something gets, the more variety you get in the makeup of that size. I'll use men as an example in hopes that leads to me getting flamed a lot less, but I think the same probably applies to women (a size 16 who is very busty compared to a size 16 who is not). If you're a guy who wears a small t-shirt size...you probably look a lot like most every other guy who wears a small t-shirt size (assuming it fits you and you're not wearing shirts way too tight for you). If you're a guy who wears an XXL t-shirt size, you could have huge shoulders and chest because you work out, or you could have small shoulders and a big gut. It takes totally different cuts to make those things look good on those 2 different guys. You're probably also looking at a broader ranges of height, etc. 

So let's get to "average size"...what does "average" mean in this case? Is it the median, the mean, the mode? Those could mean very different things in terms of 14-16 being average. It could also be that for sizes 14-16 you need enough different cuts for enough different body shapes that the average size+cut is actually a completely different size (maybe a size 8 which has only 2 cuts or something).  Here's the part I'm sure will get me flamed...it's probably SUPER easy to make clothes for a size 2, or 4, or whatever.  You can throw a burlap sack on someone with great/fit body and they'll look good.  You can't throw a burlap sack on someone who's larger and expect that it's going to look good on them.  It HAS to be more work.  Using the t-shirt example above, I'm a tall guy with big shoulders...tossing a normal t-shirt on me looks terrible, there's just way too much fabric in the stomach area and has to be 2 sizes too big in the first place so it's long enough...so to actually get a good shirt I have to get a different size, athletic cut, plus it has to be a "tall" version.  I'm sure that's a lot more work than a manufacturer just spitting on "here's a small".

I'm going to guess there's also some chicken/egg logic going on with retailers.  I'm guessing they have some research that says size 14-16 don't do as much shopping in brick-and-mortar outlets as smaller sizes...which is probably 100% true.  But do they not do the shopping there because they don't want to...or because they've figured out it's useless to since they don't carry their sizes? 

I'd argue that women within the smaller size ranges have just as much variety in their shapes as well.

I am 5'7" with small boobs, substantial hips and thighs, and a butt.  Depending on where I shop I am a size 6, 8 or 10.  There are times where I've worn a small top and large pants.  Small tops always fit my bust but don't always fit my stomach/waist.  And don't get me started on pants.  Pretty much every single pair of pants I've ever owned has been very tight in the thigh and I'll get the gap in the back.  Buying swimwear is another fun activity.  Bathing suits are out of the question since I'm nowhere near the same size on my top and bottom, but I am not confident enough in my body to want to wear a bikini.  I could do tankinis, but the tops tend to ride up on me too much and the bottoms are still too revealing for my tastes.  I managed to find two tankinis a few years ago that work for me, and I just need to hang onto them until I can't wear them anymore.  And I still end up wearing a tank top over it all because they are still not ideal.  

It's not just the bigger women who have issues with buying things that make them look good.


ETA: the bolded is not true.  It also takes work to make smaller people look good.  NY&C has the (IMO) perfect women's dress shirt - darting with stretchy material.  I have bought MANY dress shirts over the years and they have the most flattering one hands down.

absolutely with you.

I just donated a bunch to the local thrift shop, a couple still had tags on them. they were from way back when I was a size 12, but when I was dressing to really accentuate the boobs as a woman in my mid-20s in an engineering environment.  basically, I sized them for my waist and planned for tank tops underneath b/c the top two button's didn't have a prayer of ever meeting, nevermind closing.    now, even if I make it back to a 12, I'd probably buy a size larger just because. 

[milee]

May 4, 2017 12:56:10 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

May 1, 2017 14:25:07 GMT -5 milee said:

It's interesting to me as a businessperson that retailers haven't done more to offer flattering clothing in the most common range of sizes; the article says that the average size is now 14-16, so it's odd that retailers aren't targeting their lines and marketing to those sizes.

And... especially since this last election cycle, the already-pretty-nasty internet has gotten even nastier.  It's just plain rude to make a snarky comment about someone's clothing being a "tarp."  I'm hoping we're at the outside of the pendulum swing in regards to people just being publicly nasty without other people calling them out for it.

I wonder if some of the "marketing to those sizes" isn't impacted by the premise that it's simply harder to make things generically flattering for those sizes due to such differences in body types. As a general rule, the larger something gets, the more variety you get in the makeup of that size. I'll use men as an example in hopes that leads to me getting flamed a lot less, but I think the same probably applies to women (a size 16 who is very busty compared to a size 16 who is not). If you're a guy who wears a small t-shirt size...you probably look a lot like most every other guy who wears a small t-shirt size (assuming it fits you and you're not wearing shirts way too tight for you). If you're a guy who wears an XXL t-shirt size, you could have huge shoulders and chest because you work out, or you could have small shoulders and a big gut. It takes totally different cuts to make those things look good on those 2 different guys. You're probably also looking at a broader ranges of height, etc. 

So let's get to "average size"...what does "average" mean in this case? Is it the median, the mean, the mode? Those could mean very different things in terms of 14-16 being average. It could also be that for sizes 14-16 you need enough different cuts for enough different body shapes that the average size+cut is actually a completely different size (maybe a size 8 which has only 2 cuts or something).  Here's the part I'm sure will get me flamed...it's probably SUPER easy to make clothes for a size 2, or 4, or whatever.  You can throw a burlap sack on someone with great/fit body and they'll look good.  You can't throw a burlap sack on someone who's larger and expect that it's going to look good on them.  It HAS to be more work.  Using the t-shirt example above, I'm a tall guy with big shoulders...tossing a normal t-shirt on me looks terrible, there's just way too much fabric in the stomach area and has to be 2 sizes too big in the first place so it's long enough...so to actually get a good shirt I have to get a different size, athletic cut, plus it has to be a "tall" version.  I'm sure that's a lot more work than a manufacturer just spitting on "here's a small".

I'm going to guess there's also some chicken/egg logic going on with retailers.  I'm guessing they have some research that says size 14-16 don't do as much shopping in brick-and-mortar outlets as smaller sizes...which is probably 100% true.  But do they not do the shopping there because they don't want to...or because they've figured out it's useless to since they don't carry their sizes? 

Totally agree that the biggest part of the problem is that a 5' tall size 16 and a 6' tall size 16 are different, that different body shapes come into play, etc.

But that exact issue is the opportunity.  Not one retailer has really cracked that code and designers seem to want to stick to the current sizing system.  IMHO, a savvy retailer would create a sizing system that's slightly outside the paradigm.  Maybe there are still sizes, but within sizes there is a cute name for apple, stick and pear shapes for example...  because a 16 apple needs a very different fit than a 16 stick or a 16 pear.  

In the past, there might not have been the numbers of people to justify this type of stratification, but the population is large enough now that makers could do this and still have economic order quantities plus be a godsend to women.  

[sesfw]

With blouses/shirts I have found buying mens shirts do very well for me.  I have to cut the length about 4-6 inches and long sleeves I roll up.

My peeve now in women's pants are the skinny pants and capris ........ I can't wear either one, no matter what the size ................. grrrrrrrrrrrr

Of course I'm an OF but would like clothes that look good on me.

I don't want the frumpy Hillary look but that is what is available