Sizing pants: men's vs women's

Men - you are thin therefore we don’t make pants long enough for you

Solve this annoying issue by becoming fat and wearing shorts all the time.
The opposite issue for me: Big ass, big thighs, short legs.

I've given up and now I tend to just buy women's pants.
- That is better than the opposite. You can have your pants hemmed and taken in where required. It is harder to add material.
  
  I feel like people these days don't utilize tailors enough. You can improve a lot of off the rack clothing.
- But... but women's pants don't have any room in the crotch.
Yeah, I've had that problem. One of the nice things about Reddit was r/tallfashion -- acc had links to stuff with decent waist and inside leg. Have found some women's trousers pretty good for that too.
- But women's pants are cut for people that don't have genitals sticking out of their crotches. How do you avoid uncomfortable smashing?
Women's pants are also bad about that. I was underweight from stress during my breakup and most women's tall sizes start at a "6" which is like a men's 32, more or less. I was not that big at that point. And to make matters worse, many of the allegedly tall pants just have a longer inseam and are not longer in the rise, as though all difference in height is just legs.

Gap makes tall men's (I just checked and they go down to 32"waist and have 36" inseam and right now the slim fit is so, so cheap in price) and women's pants, they actually do make them tall not just longer inseam. I am not tall enough for their tall pants but get the best fit by buying tall and hemming them, because standard fit (to the extent it even exists in women's clothing) is wedgie city, not long enough. They also make tall shorts, which is amazing,they actually fit.
It's pretty annoying when I go to the clothing store, or Costco, or whatever, and everything is like size 46+ waist. I'm not sure if that's all that is left because all of the average sizes were sold out, or if that's the average size so they have a lot of them. Looking around at my fellow shoppers I think it's the former, but again, I'm not sure.
- They're there, you just don't see them. :)
What? I'm not slim, neither fat, I'm about average dude, but I rarely ever find pants that aren't too long. Maybe it's EU thing, but nearly every time I put on regular pants I feel like a scuba diver with the excesive pants as "fins". Last pants I bought "short" version and I'd still need about inch shorter...
Eat more then be a fatty like you're clearly supposed to be.
Yes they do, be shorter lol.

And the back pockets are always sewn shut on anything not jeans.

Ok, why the fuck are pockets sewn shut at all??? I'm a guy and I see clothes like this too. It pisses me off so much, it was so close to being useful, most of a pocket is already there, why would they just give up?
- I think the real reason is so that the pockets dont get snagged or deformed while a product is being transported / stored / displayed prior to being sold.
- fake pockets look nice. If you need functional ones, just pop the stitching. Usually, the stitching keeping the pocket closed is very weak compared to normal seams.
- I think the "reason" is that if pockets are available, the pant wearer will put stuff in the pockets. This adds "unsightly" bulk to the pants instead of following the natural body shape which looks "undesirable" and doesn't influence other people to want to buy that brand and type of pants.
  
  This is the best reason could come up with and it's a fucking stupid and infuriating reason. It's time to become ungovernable. Learn how to mod the pockets back into pants. It can't be that hard to figure out but it's still royal bullshit that this is what it's come to considering how much clothes cost.
  
  Does anyone buy women's pants, mod pockets back into them and resell them on ebay? Or do corporations send their lawyers after people that try to do that? The idea of illegal pant dealers is dystopian as fuck.
Of you open them is it just butt or is there a hidden pocket?
- It’s an actual pocket but I didn’t find this out until I was an adult - I thought that’s how they were made for a reason and if I cut the thread, it would make a hole in the pants. Nope, regular pockets just sewn shut for some reason.
  
  I think I was in my 30’s before someone told me the truth. It was a man IIRC lol…but yeah my mom never knew I guess, friends at school, etc, or if they did they didn’t tell me because I guess they never noticed.
- You can easily answer this question yourself by looking inside/turning the pants inside out.
Probably for tax purposes.

Things will only have useful size metrics when the buyers want useful size metrics.

Men's pants come with useful size metrics because they're useful and we attach very little meaning to the measurement of men's pants.

Women's pants come with stupid size metrics because we attach a lot of meaning to the measurement of women's pants.

It's the same reason condoms sizes are all on the spectrum of large to extra large without actually providing a length and diameter.

When was the last time you measured your waist and then tried on a pair of pants?

Men's clothing has tones of vanity sizing these days.
- The cuts of fabric are cut with dies. A layer of fabric is place down and a press presses the cutting die down to cut out the shape. A cheap manufacturer over stacks how many sheets are cut at ones. Top layer is going to be bigger then the bottom layer.
It’s the same reason condoms sizes are all on the spectrum of large to extra large without actually providing a length and diameter.

In Germany the packaging indicates the [Edit: ~~diameter~~ half circumference] in millimeters ±2mm tolerance. Because, you know, size matters here.
- Half circumference? Why?
  
  (Yeah I zoomed in. It's 52mm, which is fractionally over 2 inches)
- So that thing is 4 inches across? Eek!
  
  Edit: oh, you said "half circumference". For some reason I thought that I read diameter.

Said someone who's never shopped for men's clothes.

I bought two pairs of jeans the other day, both exactly the same size, both the same style, but just different colors. The blank ones fit, the blue ones do not fit, explain that.

My personal theory is that each pair is manufactured in a different factory, and their tolerances are so ridiculously lacks that they can produce different products the same supposedly identical blueprint.

I bought two pairs of jeans the other day, both exactly the same size, both the same style, but just different colors. The blank ones fit, the blue ones do not fit, explain that.

I’ve experienced the same issue, not just with the waist but also the inseam!

G-Star jeans are notorious for this; same style (eg. 5620s), same fit (eg. Skinny), different colours but different colours: I can fit in the 33, and 32, but the 34 is too small currently (I put in a few kg).
- Shoes really piss me off. I can wear wear anything from a size 11 to a 14 depending on the year, month, day, and hour of the day. I tried to buy a pair of slippers last winter. I tried on a pair clearly labeled 'Size 14' at the insistence of my Wife. I couldn't get them even half ways on my foot........
Ya it happens a lot with different colorways. Often the black one is different than the others as the dyeing process is different and can affect the shrinkage. They were likely the exact same size before they were dyed and poor QA processes allowed one to become way different afterwards.
I'm normally a 33 (34 w/ belt; 33 in my length is unobtanium), but I just bought a 36 swimsuit that was still a bit tight (probably closer to a 32). There absolutely is a lot of variation here.
i've had that happen with the exact same pair of pants before lol. same black slacks, same size waist and length, put on the same rack, and when i tried them on they fit totally different lmao

That is 100% not how mens sizes work.

It's 50% of how men's sizes work
- I know this is anecdotal, but I've never had pants size be the same as my waist size, even when I was in good shape.

This is very true. Men's pants are tagged with their waist size and will also normally have their leg length on the tag. I've got a fairly big belly so I have a large waist size compared to my height so this is useful.

Having to do the mental mathematics to consider which size I am or having to try on the clothes to get an understanding would be a major pain.

Nah. Mens pants sizes are just as wild and wrong as womens sizes.

Its vanity sizing, everywhere
- I struggled to fit in a size 34 a while ago.
  
  Slightly more expensive brand, I fit in 34 just fine. So in my mind I still have a 34" waist.
  
  I do not.
- I went to get a couple of pairs of jeans from a Plato's closet recently. I tried 6 pairs of different brand jeans, all 34/32. 4 pairs didn't clear my thighs, 1 couldn't button, the last fit. The cut of the jeans makes those numbers mean very different things..
I once bought 2 of exactly the same pants at the same time, after having the same one from a year earlier and liking it that much. They were both different to my original one and different to each other. I had to send the too tight one back and the replacement was different yet again. Seems like people just do not care enough that there is next to no standard.
- no standard.
  
  My only charitable theory is that vendors order clothing in batches with only a general description being passed between batch runs. No CAD drawlings in the whole industry.

All the size 10s in the shop are the same size?

(X) Doubt.

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

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.
- I don't know, maybe your pants are half an inch thick, and you overlooked accounting for that
100% men's clothing are vanity sized and it's worked so well men didn't notice.
you don't wear your pants at your waist
- Yeah, and there is no dimension on these pants that is 34 inches.

Unfortunately, that isn’t quite right for guys. Skinny, straight, relaxed…. All these types changes the fit and sizing. I wear one waist size larger for skinny.

Women’s are much worse sizing wise but the difference is that guys jeans generally just look acceptable . When a woman gets jeans that fit her correctly, they can look amazing. I doubt guys ever get compliments on the fit of their jeans.

For women, they could use 6- measurements to standardize it but unfortunately a lot of people fall for vanity sizing and don’t want to accept that they gained weight.

It happens for guys clothing too. If it is a letter based sizing there are huge variations in sizing between clothing companies. For high end brands I wear a large, at Walmart or other box stores, I wear a small.

Yeah, t-shirts absolutely suck. I'm thin, tall, and like to wear my pants lower on my hips, so shirt length is absolutely essential. In most cases, L is an inch or so longer than M, so I get L even though M would fit my chest better. I honestly wish they would just make a size between M and L, like M+, which would be just be a bit longer M (like 2 extra inches).
- We really need separate length and width measurements. I'm tall and very skinny. I usually go for a medium, but sometimes even a small, so my shirts are frequently close to too short. If I go larger than I look like I'm swamped in my shirt and it looks horrible.
- I have seen a regular and long but only on high end brands. Abercrombie and Fitch is a good example. Their tops have a size and length.
- There are "longtail" T shirts that are as your describe, slightly longer.
I shop for pants in the Men's section because the woman's section doesn't have big enough sized for my wide ass...

Woah there, men's pants aren't size 30, that's a worthless measurement. We use the inseam too, so they are the right length and the right width. :p

Ie. 32x32

Yup. Unfortunately, it's also incredibly hard to find anything outside of "normal" ranges. I'm tall and skinny, and finding pants is... a challenge, so I just buy a width size higher and wear a belt. I'm a 33x34, but generally buy 34x34 (used to fit 32x34, but those days are long past). Sometimes I need to go up to 36x34.

Sometimes you are different sizes in the same brand. And I don't mean you might need a small shirt and large pants. No. Sometimes, this pair of pants only fit in large, and this pair of pants only fit in medium. Same brand.

Yeah I gave up on jeans and bought a dozen pairs of the exact same pants that fit well, then dyed them.

They describing my dark souls character

Ah no, some brands XXL is really just L+.

This is a real example from a somewhat quality brand.

For men, cheap Amazon clothes sizing is increasingly Chinese sizes, so a XXXL is a US large.

Incorrect. I'm a 32" waste in jeans, yet my waste is much larger than 32".

Uhm, maybe you should got see a gastroenterologist if your shits are larger than 32"
- eh?

so how do we buy clothes online?

I often buy from poshmark, and only listing's that include measurements of the garments.
- Agreed, though I usually just buy brands that I already have items from so I'm familiar with their sizing.
I don't. I buy most of my clothes at Costco because I'm familiar with their sizing, they're good quality for the price, and I really don't care about fashion whatsoever. Also, their fabric is usually kinda stretchy, so I don't need to be as precise with the fit.

Is it bad that I call the sizes written on american women's clothing 'cattle gauge' measurements?

Since you're implying that women are cattle, yes