The Instigator
en-oy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheHamez
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There Should Only Be One Clothing Section For All Sizes With A Wider Range of Sizes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Fashion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 66750
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

en-oy

Pro

Title is suggesting there be no 'plus sized' section and that all women's [or men's] clothing should be in the same place. Each article of clothing should be made to fit average AND 'plus sized' people.

Round 1
Debate acceptance

Round 2
State your argument with facts

Round 3
Rebuttal

Round 4
State your argument with personal experiences

Round 5
Rebuttal
TheHamez

Con

Having different sections is simply a matter of convenience. It is simply common practice so that people can more easily locate items that will fit them. I am unsure of the benefit of combining all clothing into one section. This will just cause people more frustration in trying to find an item that fits them.

At stores like the Nike outlet, shoes are organized in sections by foot size. Once again this is done for convenience so one does not spend a long time trying to find the desired item.

Much the same, clothing stores create sections for different sizes so that the product they desire can be easily located. They are immediately aware of where something in their size will be.

It makes a lot of sense in this way, because the business has catered to the customers needs and time. They have realized that a customer does not want to spend time searching for their size, when they could simply go to the section with their sizes are start trying things on.
Debate Round No. 1
en-oy

Pro

en-oy forfeited this round.
TheHamez

Con

TheHamez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
en-oy

Pro

[Since you messed up the posted order of the rounds and I missed round two while I was sleeping, the new order is factual argument, personal argument, and then one rebuttal round on round 5.]

Segregating clothing sizes into women's and women's plus is an indirect way of fat-shaming. The plus size sections are always very out of the way and the clothing in them is almost always very frumpy and unattractive. In stores such as JCPenney, the women's plus size clothes are on the second floor, far in the back by where furniture is sold. This is a way to keep it away from where the 'normal' people have to see it. A lot of plus size clothing has either flowers, sequins, or ugly patterns on it that most young women, or even middle aged women, wouldn't be caught dead in. One of the only ways overweight or slightly larger women can find attractive clothes is by looking online. Many stores have attractive plus sized clothing but they hide it online so they don't have to cater to what is over 50% of our population. That is what percentage of women shop in plus sizes. The way they put plus sizes online only is another way of keeping 'regular' people from having to look at it and a way to save on store space that they can use to cater to people wearing a size 6. This is not only a hassle because women's clothes aren't numbered by measurement like men's pants are, but because if it does happen to be the wrong size or doesn't fit right, it then has to be shipped back which costs even more money.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind comparing plus sizes to a shoe store, shoe stores have a section for each shoe size. If it were anything like clothing, it would have two sections; the shoe section, and the big feet section. That's effectively how it is in clothing. If clothing stores were divided entirely by size, it still wouldn't work. The problem lies in the part where sizes are just guesswork. A size medium in one brand is definitely not a medium in another. If clothing sizes were based around an actual measurement, we could avoid this problem. Because of the lack of base around which clothing is sized, we couldn't separate clothing into sections by size because people would be walking back and forth, trying to find the same shirt in different sizes so they could see which one fits right.

This reasoning is why I propose all women's clothing be put in one section. This would cut out the line between regular fashion and 'fat fashion'. If awareness was raised about the state plus size fashion is in and the division between normal and plus was blurred out and the two were crossed, regular size and plus size girls could all enjoy the same clothing without feeling the barrier of weight barring them from doing so. If the two sections were combined, we could probably convince a lot more clothing companies to make bigger sizes of their popular clothes to add to the shelves instead of forcing larger sizes to shop in an entirely different clothing selection. I believe the reason these companies don't make larger sizes is because they know that the bigger articles will be hidden online where nobody will buy them. This is a problem for them so they continue only making regular sizes.

On another note, the price differences between regular and plus size clothing is uncalled for and one more method of fat-shaming. I did some research and found a very helpful article [posted] that explains why this difference in price is unnecessary. A man did a small experiment at his local Target. He said before showing his findings that the difference in women's regular and plus size clothing can often be up to $10. His experiment involved laying shirt sizes over one another. He found the difference between a small and large is the same as between a large and a 2X but, mysteriously, the price difference was only between the large and 2X, not between the small and large. The cost of material clearly is not the reason for the price jump. http://tinyurl.com...
TheHamez

Con

TheHamez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
en-oy

Pro

Due to being an overweight female, I have personal experience being discriminated against in the clothing department. While all of my friends who could shop in regular sizes could enjoy their clothes shopping experience, I was stuck struggling to find even one thing that would fit - even in the plus size section.

One day, I went out with some friends who are smaller than me and it happened to be a lot hotter than I'd expected when picking out my outfit for the day. I figured since we were planning on shopping anyway that we could search around for some cooler clothes for me to put on since we were in the city, too far to go back home. It took us three stores to find a skirt and tank top for me to wear. I am overweight but I don't need to shop in specialty stores. I am 240 pounds. That's right. I am not ashamed of my weight. While I would like to lose some and get down to about 190, I am not afraid to admit that I'm larger than most. Many women in America are this weight or larger. The problems I have with myself aren't from my own thoughts. I actually don't mind the way I look right now, yet I'm extremely self-conscious when I leave the house. This has nothing to do with my own thoughts on my body, but because I am in clothes that make it hard to stand tall and proud.

Many might say that making larger clothes more attractive would enable overweight people to keep gaining or would make a statement that it's acceptable to be overweight, while many others don't even realize that there's a difference between the plus and regular clothing sections. The thing is, whether or not I'm overweight or any other woman is overweight is really no one's business but mine or their own. I don't need to be shamed by the clothing industry to know that my weight is unaccepted by society; I understand that fully just by leaving the house or by watching TV. The problem is, instead of encouraging girls to lose weight because they want to and not just because of societal norms, the clothing industry is enforcing that if you're overweight, you shouldn't get treated the same as the normal sized girls. Your clothes get to be hidden upstairs or online. This is downright segregation if you ask me.

I would have a much easier time losing weight if I wasn't always feeling like a failure for not having done so. If I start a diet and during my journey I gain a pound on accident, I lose faith in myself and feel hopeless. It really doesn't help when I see all around me in today's culture that by gaining that one pound, I'm a fat beast with no control over my diet.

I encourage clothing stores to combine their women's clothing sections because by separating the overweight people and the thin people, they're reminding us that we're not good enough to shop where the regular ladies shop. The sections aren't called 'Women's Skinny Clothes' and 'Women's Plus Clothes'; they're called 'Women's Clothes' and 'Women's Plus Clothes.'

But aren't they all just women's clothes?
TheHamez

Con

TheHamez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
en-oy

Pro

Due to my opponent forfeiting almost every round, I have nothing to rebut. :/ If anyone is interested in continuing the debate unofficially, feel free to comment thoughts and opinions.
TheHamez

Con

TheHamez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by en-oy 2 years ago
en-oy
What I mean is, the plus sized section has en entirely different selection of garments and many of them are flowery or have sequins and looks like something a 90 year old would wear. I suggest combining plus sized and normal sized sections and instead of having different clothing for different sizes, having the same clothing as is in the normal sizes but with a wider range of sizes so more people can wear them. One size fits all is bogus :]
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
....are you saying like a "one size fits all" kind of thing, or just size 0-30 or something, and no "petit" or "plus size" or any of that "labeling"?
No votes have been placed for this debate.