Few celebrities attract as many conspiracy theories as Marilyn Monroe. For instance, rumours that she was a member of the Communist Party were debunked years ago, but belief in other myths continues—such as the one that insists she was a size 16.
However, as with so many other things, sizing is largely a relative matter. In inches, Norma Jeane measured a voluptuous 35-37 around the bust, 22-23 for the waist, and 35-36 in the hips. While it’s difficult to translate these measurements, current sizing standards suggest she was closer to a modern UK size 8 and an Australian 10-12 in the 1960s, which should give us some idea of the disparity in sizing standards through history and geographic location.
If you’re wondering how Monroe managed to shed four sizes, you’re not alone. As women’s measurements keep changing, retailers are making sure sizing labels stay the same or get smaller to accommodate our expanding girth.
The History of Vanity Sizing
It’s no secret that retailers are making larger garments without changing the size label so customers won’t notice they’re plumping up. This practice, known as vanity sizing, has become almost synonymous with Marks and Spencer. Starting around the 1970s, a size 14 (28-inch waist) became a svelte 12 in the 1980s, and a 10 by 2015. Likewise, a size 12 from 1995 checks in at a size 10 in 2026. And still the goalposts keep moving. An American female YouTuber reports being a size 22 (UK 26) but fitting into a 14 (UK 18).
Of course, legitimate historical and biological factors can explain the increase in sizes across the decades. A size 12 in the 1950s is now a size 4-6, due to the scarcity of fabric after the Second World War. In the 1970s, hips were generally only two inches greater than the bust. Now, the difference is about four inches. Waves of immigration and a greater ethnic mix partly explain a changing average body shape, which complicates translating clothing sizes across the decades.
By tricking customers into thinking they fit smaller clothes, chains aim to retain their customer base through flattery. Making someone feel unattractive would be enough to cut them off, right?
This is a nerve retailers don’t want to touch, especially among the image-obsessed Gen Z. Gen Z women find the discrepancies in sizes ‘confusing’ and ‘disheartening, [because] you feel your body has changed overnight.’ For post-Millennials, raised heavily on Identity Politics, ‘body image [is] so tied to your sense of identity’ that many women are now more sensitive to a size reading that feels unattractive. Some find themselves ‘attaching [their] worth to a number on a size cube’ and experiencing ‘an added layer of stress’ when the reading is not as desired. Is this simply an unhealthy obsession with figurative labels? One 27-year-old woman with body dysmorphia finds that clothes sizes ‘definitely’ affect her self-esteem. As a result, she ‘prefer[s] baggier clothing,’ but I’d wager not a bigger size label.
The culture of vanity sizing relies heavily on boosting customer self-esteem. As well as rewriting Monroe’s statistics, sizing discrepancies have perpetuated another urban legend. The now-old adage, ‘the average British woman is a size 16,’ grew from a 2001 advertising campaign headed by—you’ve guessed it—Marks and Spencer. But that supposed ‘size 16’ was always a bit evasive. In 2001, size 16 meant a 40.5-inch bust, 32.5-inch waist and 43-inch hips. That’s larger than a 1970s size 18 (40B, 31W, 42H). Bottom line: producing larger garments requires more fabric and costs more. No wonder stores employ flattery as a means of shielding against losses.
2001’s size 16 falls short of Topshop’s current 16 (40.6B, 33.5W, 43.3H), as well as Dorothy Perkins’ (41.5B, 34W, 44.5H), River Island’s (41B, 34W, 44.5H) and even Marks and Spencer’s (40.25B, 34W, 43.5). The readings vary because there are no legal, standardised measurements for clothing in the UK. Little wonder, then, why many stores put their clothing size charts online. Being transparent helps attract clientele. But what looks like transparency is in fact a tool for misleading the public.
A Study in Sizing Discrepancies
Clothing retailer Next emerges as a snake in the grass, tempting customers with an apple of vanity. Next’s sizing guides make rivals look smaller than the measurements used on their own website. This makes Ted Baker and Oasis look like they’re using smaller hip measurements compared to Next’s ‘standard’ sizing guidelines. Effectively, by undersizing their competitors, Next’s measurements manage to keep the size labels down — the essence of vanity sizing.
In the absence of universal sizing guidelines, Next is only doing what any retailer would do: staying ahead of the game by giving customers what they want. The bigger issue is our changing diet and reliance on convenience foods, which has made it harder to burn fat.
The practice of vanity sizing helps to conceal our expanding waistlines, creating the illusion that processed food and a lack of physical activity do not affect body weight. This deception is especially helpful for those retailers that offer both clothing and convenience foods. Yes, outlets like . . . Marks and Spencer.
Like a brand-new skirt that fools us into thinking we’re still a size 10, the vanity sizing issue is far bigger than it seems.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
