The internets were blowing up this week when a prominent US retailer appeared on the news program Good Morning America to discuss bras and claimed that bra sizes are a scam and “ten years ago all the manufacturers changed the sizes without telling anyone.” She says bras use “vanity sizing” to make women think they have smaller backs and bigger breasts. I (and many others) took serious issue with this claim.
Now, Darlene thinks ABC may have done some creative editing to make the statement more shocking. It’s possible a larger point was trying to be made that women should basically disregard the numbers and letters and just wear what feels and fits the best. But I still can’t get behind that vanity sizing idea, much less that it happened ten years ago.
As Butterfly Collection’s excellent response points out, most brands that offer D+ sizes did not exist until the 1990s. The Eveden group, for example, only started focusing on larger cups after a buyout in 1992. And the brands that existed prior to the ’90s that are still around (Playtex, Maidenform, our old pal Victoria’s Secret [founded in 1977], etc.) still don’t sell anything below a 32 band or above a D cup (maybe DD if you’re lucky). So who are the manufacturers that used to stick with 32+ and A-D but now offer 28+ and D+? I don’t know of a single one.
Additionally, wouldn’t vanity sizing also mean that companies would no longer be offering small cups like A and B and 40+ bands? If vanity sizing was really happening, sizes like 42C wouldn’t exist, because a 42C woman would be fit into, say, a 36DDD/E. But those larger bands and smaller cups do exist.
Next, it’s widely understood at this point that the plus-four method of measuring comes from the pre-1960’s, when bras were made of non-stretchy materials and boning. With the invention of elastane in 1959, bra construction completely changed, yet apparently the letters and numbers system used for bra sizing did not. Why retailers and manufacturers still insist upon using the same plus-four method these days is a mystery. That would be like using the fitting instructions of a 19th century swim costume for a modern Olympic competition swimsuit. Though the purpose may be the same, there’s no denying that it’s two entirely different garments. So using sizing that differs from pre-1960s is not vanity sizing; it’s compensating for a new style while still being shoehorned into the same sizing scheme.
Furthermore, the non plus-four method means you simply use your actual body measurement as your size. The letters are then based on the difference between your underbust and your bust measurements. If I measure 29 inches underbust, then I wear a 28 or 30 band. If I then have a 37.5-inch bust, I wear a G or FF cup (in UK brands). How is that vanity sizing? Men’s pant sizes are based on actual measurements, but we don’t call that vanity sizing. It makes far less sense to use arbitrary numbers than your real measurement. In reality, all those companies that advocate the plus-four method are using the opposite of vanity sizing (humility sizing?) whereas the rest of us are just using…well…sizing!
Lastly, I must disagree that the average woman even wants a smaller back and bigger breasts. There is a huge stigma attached to large breasts the world over. In the west, anything above a D cup is thought of as fake or “porn star boobs.” Women and even young girls get accused of being a “slut” or “skank” just for having large breasts. A busty woman was even thrown off a Southwest Airlines flight earlier this year for “inappropriate” cleavage.
People sometimes literally do not believe me when I say I’m a G-cup. Some women are in disbelief that they could “be that big” or even cry when they’re fitted into a D+ cup. Additionally, finding bras with smaller back sizes (much less ones that don’t cost an arm and a leg) is a major challenge. Just finding clothing for a frame with comparatively large breasts is difficult. Obviously there are women out there who would prefer to have bigger breasts and there are women who would prefer to be thinner, but I don’t think the very specific combination of a small back and big breasts is something most women consider. It’s two different ideas: (1) I want to be skinny; and (2) I want big boobs.
As someone with a journalism degree, I really have to wonder what source proves this vanity sizing exists and that it started ten years ago. Where is the evidence, the proof? It seems like ABC dropped the ball on fact-checking this story.
Amen! This was so well-put, Leah. And I’m certainly interested to hear what the major manufacturers have to say about this.
The point of this piece is to get people to look at boobs and spike the ratings. Stephen Colbert+Boobs= happy 14-35 year old men that might come back and watch more mornings.
It’s kind of sad that Linda has the platform and is using it just to promote her store. After seeing the video, I don’t think I will be using Lind’s online store not will I be telling other people about it.
Yes! To the network it was just a chance to say “Ha, ha, breasts! Ha, ha”.
I’m British so I wouldn’t use Linda’s store anyway but after I saw this I went on her website. One thing I don’t understand is that Linda’s bra calculator does not advocate adding inches (I measure 29 underbust, it told me to wear a 30 band). Surely if Linda believes in vanity sizing it would logically follow that she believes in the plus four method? Or not? I think this probably just shows that she wasn’t able to fully explain herself.
Nope – no need to add inches for some! Remember, my point was that sizes had changed, which means measuring methods had to, as well. Bra Calculators and DIY Measuring methods are just a starting point, and I’ve worked hard to make the Calculator accurate – but it can never fully replace a trained fitter. That’s why it’s a great tool to “check in” on your size, then get help from my trained fitters via phone or email. 🙂 xo Linda
http://blog.lindasonline.com/2012/10/16/how-bra-band-sizes-have-changed/ Read more of my explanation here!
“all those companies that advocate the plus-four method are using the opposite of vanity sizing (humility sizing?) whereas the rest of us are just using…well…sizing!”
^Spot on!
Hear hear! Great post. If men can have clothes that relate to actual measurements, why can’t we? It seems simpler. I also have to agree that as much as I love my boobs, I can’t imagine any woman feeling like her “ideal” bra size is a 32J, or particularly flattered by it versus being another size.
I watched the clip from ABC and I was horrified by the terrible journalism. The male presenters introducing the segment were derisive, sexist and creepy and Linda’s comments were edited so that it was impossible to make sense of what she was saying. They didn’t give her the chance to actually put her point across and explain it fully. I might (probably) disagree with Linda on this but I do believe that she takes bra education seriously and wanted to make a serious point but the TV network didn’t allow her to because bras are comic to them. They do women a disservice because this is a serious issue and we do need information and debate.
Excellent post Leah! You echoing my reaction to this. Lindas point was probably that people should wear a bra that fits and not get fixated on the letters and numbers, though when I tweeted with her she does also believe the sizing has changed and quoting her “I think it’s important for women to know that sizes have changed and it’s time to get re-braducated :D”
And lastly a western world from northern Europe view on this bit on the post “In the west, anything above a D cup is thought of as fake or “porn star boobs.†Women and even young girls get accused of being a “slut†or “skank†just for having large breasts.” Well, Nordic women are quite busty and we don’t really associate any of those stigmas with just a big bust and while those labels get attached to some women or girls, sadly, it happens here for other reasons and bust has pretty much nothing to do with it.
I do know that this happens more in UK, USA and NZ for example so it’s a bit of a cultural thing even in the western world.
When I heard about this I was so annoyed just because fitters are behind on new techniques of fitting does not mean the bras are wrong and she is right. Also I am pretty sure there was an experiment done around bra sizing and it proved than +4 does not work on the marjoirty of women which is more likely to do with the change in materials that bras are made from. Its such a pain in the arse when someone asks what size I am 30FF maybe G (UK) but when I ask what size I look most people will say D I assume there thinking of a 36 D and just look confused when I tell them my size. Life would be easier if how to measure bras correctly were used more widely.
Hi there! If you would like to get my take on this whole thing (straight from the horse’s mouth), please read this: http://blog.lindasonline.com/2012/10/16/how-bra-band-sizes-have-changed/ Thanks! xo Linda the Bra Lady
Great reply!
Also I do believe the pre-1960’s sizing was actually real vanity sizing. The ideal figure meassure 36-24-36, and making bras to fit when +4″ where added was to make people get closer to 36″ (or so HerRoom says, I am not sure where they got their information from though). So (if we believe them) we are actually getting rid of the vanity way of sizing bras with the +whatever-will-fit-you-right way.
So many people who do not know how a bra should fit uses the same words as Linda, it’s vanity sizing to not add 4 (or whatever other number they believe will make any bra fit, and that armed with it they won’t even look to see that their center gore is nowhere near flat). Now they have a “bra fitting expert” that says the same thing. I don’t think anybody wants to be perceived as vain. This is making people less likely to get correctly sized, I think, because of the wording that was and is persistenly being used. If it had been said in a different way, with other words than “vanity sizing”, then the situation might be quite different.
Linda didn’t say to go and get a 36D when really the 32E is the one that fits, but I think that part of her point is lost under the huge weight of the words vanity sizing.
Which makes me glad that there are other material, like this blog post, out here for people to find, that talks of this in a different way than what was originally done.
NONE of the bras I’m talking about have underwires, not mine, not Gramma’s and also not my mother’s.
I absolutely know the sizing is way off, incredibly way off. I wish I still had that old raggety bra, I could prove it. I had been saying that something was way off long before I heard about some show where someone talked about vanity sizing. I wore bras in the 60s and 70s. Then in the 80s, for a long period of time, not working, I didn’t have to bother with them. Then in the late 1990s up to now, if I go out fancy dressed, dancing, etc, I have to wear them – so I had to buy them. And right then, I knew something was way WAY off with the sizes – and it was many various manufacturers, from one expensive bra to many cheap WalMart or K Mart bras.
The one bra I had, from way back then, the cups and shoulder straps were fine , but the whole rest of the bra was raggety and I had to get new ones. And I NOTICED. I went to the store, since everything was the same size as I was, I even have clothes in good condition from the 70s, and bought a 36B bra. I didn’t try it on in the store, I was rushed – I just picked one up to try on at home later, when I had time. It looked off, but then I tried it on at home and there was no way I was going to fit into it. It was small. Way way too small. So, I figured they got the label wrong on this cheap 3 dollar bra. How wrong I was. They changed the way they size them – OH YES THEY DID – as I found out when I went back and tried on MANY brands – and none fit. And so I tried bigger sizes until I got some that fit. OH YES they changed the sizes! I did not get bigger. I still had that old raggety bra and the cups fit. NONE of the new bras I tried on were right, they lied about cup sizes.
When I was a kid, my head (height) came up to the underside of my Gramma’s breasts, I’d hug her, my face was sideways against her belly tight, in a hug, and her breast stuck out, laid across the top of my head with about 1/2 inch past my head. I used to play a game and sneak my hand up to tweek her and she’d yelp. This happened a lot, too, it was a game and everyone laughed. That means that from her chest, just under her breast, to the tip of her breast, she was sticking out 1/2 inch further than my head from side to side. That’s 6 inches. She was considered big among some American people that were AA cups. The AA size (smaller than an A) was considered small at the time – and the AAA was considered flat chested; but Gramma was normal for my family. Her bra size was 40C and this was the 1950s. The bra was full fitting, it wasn’t like she was half out of the bra. It covered her in full; wide shoulder straps, 3 hooks on the back. 40C. She wore the same bra size into the early 80s, then she passed away.
A good expensive bra I have, bought in the 2000s that fits me perfectly with full coverage is a 36D. I’m fine with the 36. But D? I say, NO WAY. NOT possible, yet that’s the size. I should be a 36B or almost C, like I was before, not a D. It depended on the bra brand too, some 36Bs fit perfectly like my old raggety bra.
When I first wore a bra (got sent home from school with a note telling my mom to get me a bra) I was a 34C, but my breast would also fit into a 36B. One number size up, one cup size down. (So a person who was 35″ around could fit into a 34C or 36B.) The 36 was too big around at the time and the 34 had to be taken in a bit as it was, so I was a 34C for years, with the back taken in, then later it wasn’t necessary to take it in. When I got a bit bigger all around, in my later 20s, I was a 36C, barely – the B was a bit too tight, the C was a bit loose. But around I was 36″. As I said, I had one favorite bra, it fit perfectly, and it was a 36B. Very well made – it’s the one I had that became raggety just sitting in a drawer unused for years.
So I have the experience of HAVING a bra from the late 70s, and then buying a bra in the later 90s. The CUPS on the old 36B and the new 36D were THE SAME. They not only looked the same, they also measured the same and fit the same. I threw out that old bra – I should have saved it, just to prove a point. The sizes around have not changed, after all, anyone can measure themselves around. But the cup sizes have been drastically changed.
The sizing is so off it’s a joke. I have some WalMart cheap 5 buck bras that are 38C, but they hardly cover my breasts, which means I can wear them with low cut blouses. They are comfortable. Again, NO WAY. My mother was a 38B and she was bigger than me. That’s the size she wore in the early 80s. I saw it. I should not be able to fit into a 38C and certainly not a 36D. But that’s the size on the bras – and they are by different manufacturers, all bought in the 90s and 2000s.
I remember that a “normal, regular, well built” size was 34B. All the girls wanted that. Everyone with a good figure wanted to be 34B, like June Cleaver or the other women we grew up with on TV. Blouses back then had darts sewn into them for the breasts, and the 34B size fit a size 34 blouse perfectly, no left over material that you’d see on women who were 34A, and not tight so that the buttons pulled if the woman was bigger than 34B (like I was – blouses always pulled). A 36B was considered big by American standards, men often talked to the woman’s boobs instead of to her. Size C was va va voom, oh my god, boobs on feet – and nobody knew anyone that wore a D unless they were very fat older women. Size D was gimungus – boobs bigger than a whole person’s head, sticking out further than a person’s head from front to back. HUGE. There was one fat older woman who wore a 38D – even while fat, she was HUGE; my cousin’s grandmother.
So I KNOW the sizes are so off it’s a joke. I now see women, what we used to call small chested, now wearing a B, or claiming to. They should be wearing a double A, size AA is smaller than an A. A was an OK size too, not flat. B, as I said, was the desired goal for an hour glass figure.
A friend of mine gained a bit of weight, but still had a good figure, but she fit into a 38DD and STILL she was not as big as Gramma – at least 2 inches less sticking out than Gramma. 2 inches is a LOT. A breast only sticking about about 2 inches was an A cup.
I KNOW the sizes are way off. As I said, I HAD a very very old, falling apart bra that was a 36B and looked at it next to the 36D when I just bought the 36D – and the cup was the same. It FIT the same.
A real 36D? I should be sticking out about 8 or 9 inches. I’m not. The size is a fraud. Perhaps this happened very slowly, but for me, since I stopped wearing anything around 1980 and only started wearing them again when I go out in 1997, I notice a HUGE difference. If it happened slowly, it might not be noticed, or a woman might think she got bigger. This is not my experience – I HAD that old 36B bra when I bought the 36D. SAME.
I have more to say:
The article states “As Butterfly Collection’s excellent response points out, most brands that offer D+ sizes did not exist until the 1990s. The Eveden group, for example, only started focusing on larger cups after a buyout in 1992.”
Yes? Imo, there was no need for D + sizes because the D was so huge that it would “more or less” fit huge women and huge huge women. For someone who was a too big for a C, but not quite big enough for a D, she could opt for a tight bra, or go one number size bigger and take it in, or go for the D and let it b3e loose, or tuck it under the bottom. Just as I said, for awhile a 36B was a tad tight but a 36C was a bit loose. I should have elaborated. Some 36Bs, like my raggety bra, were perfect. And some 36C were so loose I’d swim in them. There was a pretty big difference between an A cup and a B cup and a C cup.
You have to measure yourself with a measuring tape around to know the number size. It’s the cup sizes that changed – and if I kept that raggety old 36B, I could prove it. Old 36B = new 36D, as I said.