Trying on the the numbers

Somewhere just the other day I read that size 16 is the average size for a New Zealand woman. I know – ’’average’’, what’s that? Semantics aside, this means that although model garments are made to size 10 the average woman wears a size 16, which means only the tiniest can get away with buying a runway model outfit.

Now if 16 is the ‘‘average’’ I am surprised because when I am looking to buy a dress I usually find it only in size 12, which is no use at all. And on the other hand my neighbour, who is barely a size 12 , says that when she takes a close look at something she likes it’s about size 18; again no use at all.

Once newspaper advertising showed womenswear available in three sizes. W, which would be average, SW small and WX bigger and nothing in between – except for many professional dressmakers and canny home seamstresses customising their own patterns.

Today, we see some city stores advertising from size 10 to 24 and catalogue retailers add a range of plus sizes that go to 30 and beyond. So the size 16 crowd are many but not most, and we never see a size 16 in professional advertisements for ladies of the night in the adult entertainment section of the newspaper.

There, bewilderingly, there are beautiful and available young ladies whose sizes range from a tiny 10 down to 6 and they are not children because the adjective ‘‘busty’’might be included.

Generally, of course, words like ‘‘busty’’ and ‘‘curvaceous’’ are used to describe more mature models whose sizing is so much less specific. Fifty years ago, in Marilyn Monroe’s day, the ideal figure was given as 36-26-36 - perfectly proportioned with 10 inches between waist and bust and waist and hips.

But somehow those girls started to look a bit hefty and model shape became 34 -24-34 -same proportions but on a smaller scale: don’t ask me what size that would be, perhaps 11? Interesting that in the sizing of undergarments like bras, digitals lost out so we say 38D and know what we want – inches, more or less.