40.5

[james_davis_nicoll]

Is how large my waist is. If it was 40, Old Navy would carry trousers in my size. The next size up is 42 and the clerk was very clear [1] on the point that such sizes are online only. But at least, unlike the Waterloo Old Navy, she didn't suggest I was older than their desired demographic.

Marks had a 40 that did fit me, so that was OK.

1: Also, it turns out one of the reliable ways to annoy me is to answer an either or question with a yes or no.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Here's a little something to make you feel even older....

https://geekdad.com/2017/07/life-of-the-party-for-july-4-2017/

-AwesomeAud

[(Anonymous)]

When I was somewhat bulkier than I am now, I found that some 40s fit me well up to 44. Some pants stretch considerably, in other words. Another advantage of these is that I don't now have a number of 44 size pairs which would no longer fit me (but might in future, sadly).

Never shopped at Old Navy. It's a term I associate with amputated legs and splinter wounds, not clothing.

William Hyde

[movingfinger]

The numbers stated on the charts often lie; it's well to try things on.

[graydon]

An awareness of civilized norms and a nagging expectation that such a person is nigh-certainly venerable if not dead of their age, I can't resolve to find the person responsible for the fixed ratio between the size of the thighs and the size of the waist in men's pants and hit them with a fish.

I gave up on stores for casual pants; most of it's been Carhartt mail-order this last little while. Not cheap, but they wear.

[martianmooncrab]

except when the answer is either a yes or a no, and then they suffer from verbal diarrhea... sigh.

[vom_marlowe]

I have a lot of trouble getting pants that fit properly. If they fit in the waist, they're impossible in the legs. If they fit in the hips, they gap at the waist.

Maddening.

These days I buy from thrift stores and do fit adjustments, but it still sucks.