this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
887 points (97.3% liked)

People Twitter

5396 readers
295 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sploosh 17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Bullshit! I wear size 34 pants with a belt to keep them on and they are 36.25in around.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I wear 33W pants but they measure 36" around the belt loops. This isn't the result of vanity sizing, though - men used to wear pants that were very high-waisted, but as pants got lower over the decades they kept using the "nominal" waist measurement so that men would still know what size to buy, since the circumference around the hips (where most pants are cut today) is about 3" ~~less~~ more than the circumference of what used to be the waist.

Pleats are another useless holdover from the high-waisted era, as they made it easier for pants to expand down over the hips and thighs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I don't know, maybe your pants are half an inch thick, and you overlooked accounting for that

[–] HeapOfDogs 13 points 5 months ago

100% men's clothing are vanity sized and it's worked so well men didn't notice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

you don't wear your pants at your waist

[–] sploosh 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and there is no dimension on these pants that is 34 inches.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

yes, because you measure at your waist but you don't wear your pants at your waist