I think I can be a four these days without looking post-apocalyptic. I just don't want to have that little muscle.

Apparently I'm looking a bit musclebound these days, but I think that's only to people I get to hit.

A hair short of 5'5", and when not carrying an extra human I'm anywhere from a 4 to a 10, depending on the brand and style. The 4 end of the scale is definitely utter lying-label bullshit -- pre-pregnancy I had a pair of size 4 slacks that were roomier and comfier than a pair of size 8 jeans from high school (approx. 1985) that I could barely squeeze into anymore.

At Trader Joe's last night, I apparently decided my life should be more like a cocktail party. I'm having mushroom turnovers for dinner.

Now that I'm broaching 8, I get more confused than ever. The whole small/medium/large thing is weird now that I can add large to the smalls and mediums that actually fit. Being just small and medium made a lot more sense, but still not all that much.

On of the nice things about wearing's men's Levi's since high school is that I can be pretty sure I am mostly the same size, although store sizes are changing. I was always a 10 in college, and now am reliably an 8 and occasionally smaller (various insane designers and pregnancy status excepted). But a Levi's 501 32w/34l is always the same.

We who shop in the 20+ section of the size pool laugh at those of you fretting over single digits.

edit: not that you're fretting, but merely wondering.

I don't think anybody's fretting; I at least am marvelling over the inconsistency of clothing sizes.

Who's fretting? I'm guessing size inconsistency is the same for women of all sizes.

I'd claim I edited to make flea look silly (though adorable), but I hadn't refreshed my screen to see flea's comment before I edited.

I remember back in school when I used to be pissed that stores were always out of 29w jeans, as I reasoned that surely people must go through that waist size before moving on to the larger ones.

Alas, no such difficulties finding pants in a 40w.