What’s in a size? A lot.

In the 1950s, Marilyn Monroe was considered one of the sexiest women in existence. Not only was she glamorous, but she had that find-an-air-vent-and-pose thing totally down. She also had a classic beauty mark that puts Cindy Crawford’s to shame. (That’s not really true. To be honest, I’ve never had beauty mark preferences and I don’t plan on starting now.) She married a host of hotties and even got to sing a steamy version of “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” to our nation’s most erotic president, John F. Kennedy. (Yum.)\nA few weeks ago while at the salon, this topic came up between me and my hairstylist.\n“Oh, but you know she was a size 12!” she said. \nA 12! \nJust in case the boys and faithful nudists aren’t aware, size 12 is looked upon by society as large and not-so-in-charge. So, for Marilyn to have been that size in the prime of her stardom is truly incredible. Any actress with a size 12 tag in 2007 gets immediately thrown into the fat actress category with Queen Latifah and Mo’Nique, suitable for Cover Girl commercials (note: face only) and sitcoms about big ladies who just love ranch dressing and mayonnaise. \nAnyways, when I stopped by my parent’s house this weekend (which still sounds crazy), my mom had clipped an article for me out of the local paper about this very subject. Surrounding the article were two pictures: one of Marilyn Monroe in 1959 and the other of a slammin’ Vivica A. Fox in 2005. Both pictures labeled the ladies’ bust, waist and hip measurements, illustrating how similar the two ladies were built. The largest disparity between them in any spot was only one inch. Above their photos were their sizes: Marilyn Monroe, 1959, size 12; Vivica A. Fox, 2005, size 4.\nSay what?!\nSo Marilyn wasn’t a fat actress?\nApparently not, unless you think Vivica could stand to lose a few. In which case, well, you’re just wrong.\nBut this all brings up the larger issue of vanity sizing, which occurs when clothing manufacturers inflate sizes in order to accommodate their buyer’s desire for thinness. Basically, brands feel that they may lose customers if those customers must wear a larger size tag in their clothes, so they increase the actual size of the clothing but keep the smaller tag. This is especially prevalent in women’s wear, because when was the last time you heard a guy say, “I can’t be caught wearing a large, gross!” \n Obviously vanity sizing is a problem. In another 50 years, a size 4 may become a size negative 4. Kate Moss will be sporting a negative 20 and Kirstie Alley will be squeezing herself into a size 2, and we can’t let that happen.\nAnd it doesn’t help that America is basically feeding spoonfuls of lard to its children at this point. According to the American Society for Testing and Materials, which is in charge of apparel and sizing standards, the average size of a woman in the 1960s was an 8. Now, it has nearly doubled to become an average of size 14. \nSo, not only are we all getting fatter, but we’re all getting a little less willing to accept how fat we actually are; hence, vanity sizing. \nThis all comes into play when shopping – specifically, when it takes four or five trips to the fitting room just to find the right top. Don’t even get me started on jeans.\nSo here’s my suggestion: Obviously sizes are more messed up than the Olsen twins, so perhaps if we start shopping with that mentality, we’ll all stop caring what the tag says. You can’t change what fits, and squeezing into something for the sake of an insignificant number won’t help anything.\nOr just get naked. Nudism comes in all sizes.