A sexy little black dress. Jeans that make your legs look impossibly long. A jacket so chic you can’t resist breaking it out weeks before the weather warrants.

There’s nothing quite as satisfying as finding the perfect outfit, walking out of the mall with an armful of bags, and ripping the tags off before a night out. But for women who’ve spent most of their adult lives wearing a size 0 or 00, shopping isn’t quite what it used to be. Our favorite brands are turning out gorgeous collections, and we want to give them our money. The problem? Nothing fits.

From Connecticut to California, grown women are wandering into children’s departments as a last resort, sifting through school uniforms and snowflake appliqués in search of something, anything, they could wear on a night out. They’re not looking for a bargain or cartoon characters. They’re there because even the smallest size in the women’s section is too big. It would be comical if it weren’t so frustrating.

Welcome to the vexing world of vanity sizing, where the labels keep getting smaller, the clothes keep getting bigger, and the true XS is one season away from qualifying as an endangered species.

Girl Math

They say numbers don’t lie. But clothing labels have certainly developed a rather, shall we say, flexible relationship with the truth.

The fashion industry’s obsession with clothing sizes is hardly new. Two decades ago, The Devil Wears Prada captured it perfectly when Nigel questions Andy Sachs’s choice of lunch, joking that cellulite is one of its ingredients. Andy asks whether any of the women at Runway actually eat, prompting Nigel to explain that a size 2 has become a 4, and a 0 has become a 2. When Andy declares she’s a size 6, Nigel delivers his cutting response: “Which is the new fourteen.”

The joke still lands today, but figuring out your actual clothing size has become even more difficult.

For those unfamiliar with the term, vanity sizing is the practice of assigning smaller numerical labels to garments with larger measurements, giving shoppers the satisfaction of slipping into a size they might not ordinarily wear.

A 2012 study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology found that smaller clothing labels encouraged more favorable self-perceptions and influenced clothing preferences among shoppers with lower appearance-related self-esteem. Apparently, the number on a waistband can sell us on an item before we’re even rung up.

Imagine wearing a size 6 for most of your adult life, only to discover you’re suddenly a 4, maybe even a 2. Your hips haven’t changed. Your favorite retailer has simply decided you’re going to be two sizes smaller. It’s a welcome surprise for some. The woman who was already wearing a size 23 in denim, however, has considerably less reason to celebrate.

Marilyn Monroe’s famous hourglass figure is a reminder of how little those numbers mean. The claim that the sex symbol wore a size 16 still circulates online, often as proof of how dramatically beauty standards have changed. But sizing has changed, too. Monroe’s 1945 modeling records listed her as a size 12 with a 24-inch waist. In 2016, TIME reported that the measurements associated with a women’s size 8 in 1958 would have qualified as a 00 nearly six decades later.

And it isn’t only the passage of time that makes sizing so difficult to interpret. Research examining size charts from 54 American apparel retailers found that moderately priced women’s brands generally used more generous measurements than discount labels, while expensive designer brands tended to run smaller. Retailers targeting younger shoppers also used smaller measurements than those appealing to older customers.

There may be no such thing as a universal size 2, but there’s certainly a business in persuading customers they’ve magically become one.

Options Wearing Thin

The problem isn’t the harmless little white lie that makes shoppers feel good about themselves. It’s that for someone already shopping at the smallest end of the rack, nothing fits, pushing her out of the equation entirely.

The Wall Street Journal has reported has reported on petite shoppers turning to children’s clothing because adult options have become too roomy. A cropped bomber jacket from the girls’ department might work beautifully with jeans and ballet flats, but certain pieces present challenges. After all, children’s clothing isn’t designed around adult proportions. A small waist can still come with fuller breasts, defined hips, or shoulders that require a more sophisticated cut.

Back in the women’s department, it’s blazers with awkward shoulders, trousers that gape at the waist, and fitted tops with fabric to spare. Oversized dressing has its place. The Olsen twins built an entire fashion vocabulary around it. But there’s a difference between choosing an oversized silhouette and having one chosen for you.

The children’s-department workaround has even developed a following online. In July 2026, The Independent explored adults shopping girls’ collections at Zara, Marks & Spencer, and other retailers. TikTok creator Holly Gardner explained that children’s clothing sometimes suits her proportions better than conventional petite collections, which often shorten garments without adjusting the rest of the cut.

This past summer, LoveShackFancy’s collaboration with Target became another talking point as petite adults shopping the children’s collection faced ridicule online. Although designed for tweens and teens, the collection’s feminine florals and bows gave grown women another reason to browse the girls’ department, something critics took issue with.

If you so much as hint that an XS is too big, you may be met with eye rolls, accused of humblebragging or, worse, being a pick-me. People are quick to tell you to “just get it altered.” But since when did buying brand-new clothes come with the expectation of paying someone else to make them fit?

For years, the internet has encouraged women to speak up about being excluded from conventional size ranges. So why is a smaller woman struggling to find clothes that fit accused of seeking attention? It doesn’t diminish the importance of expanding larger sizes, but it raises a fair question: if all bodies are beautiful and worthy of celebration, shouldn’t the size chart extend in both directions?

And as GLP-1 medications become more widely used, changes in clothing sizes add another dimension to the conversation. According to retail analytics firm Circana, 80% of GLP-1 users anticipate needing new clothes as their bodies change, while 55% of active users have already purchased clothing or footwear. That alone should give retailers reason to revisit their sizing strategies.

Fit Check

Those who work in fashion already know there’s a substantial market in serving overlooked shoppers.

Khloé Kardashian has spoken about being directed to a different department from her sisters because stores didn’t carry her size. When she and Emma Grede launched Good American in 2016, they made inclusive sizing central to the business, requiring retail partners to carry its full range.

Designer Christian Siriano offered another example when he told ELLE in 2018 that expanding into plus sizes had tripled his business. As he put it, “The whole point of being a designer is to make people feel good.” So why shouldn’t that same philosophy apply to customers searching for an XXS or XXXS?

Some brands already understand that fit is more complicated than adding another number to a label. Abercrombie & Fitch offers selected denim beginning at size 23, with lengths ranging from Extra Short to Extra Long. Its Curve Love line allows more room through the hips and thighs than its Classic fit.

J.Crew offers size 000 in selected collections, while Madewell, Levi’s, MOTHER, and FRAME provide varying combinations of lengths, fits, and measurement guidance. PAIGE goes further with petite denim, adjusting the knee and mid-thigh placement rather than simply chopping a few inches off the hem.

Petite and extra-small aren’t interchangeable, and neither are a narrow waist and narrow hips. Likewise, Victoria’s Secret offers in-store bra fittings, a reminder that a narrow rib cage doesn’t automatically mean a small bust. A size label alone can’t tell you whether a bra will flatter your figure.

The same principle applies to the rest of a wardrobe: getting dressed shouldn’t require squeezing yourself into a retailer’s idea of what your proportions ought to be.

Even the most meticulously designed XXS isn’t especially helpful if it’s available exclusively online. There’s something to be said for walking into a store, trying things on, and taking them home. Instead, customers are left ordering multiple sizes, trying everything on again, and dealing with returns. Meanwhile, the retailer that accommodates their measurements has a chance to win their loyalty.

In an October 2025 Vogue Business survey, 91% of respondents said their clothing size varied by brand. A woman who repeatedly leaves a store empty-handed isn’t necessarily unwilling to spend. She might happily buy half the collection if someone simply made her size.

And while there’s nothing wrong with basking in a little numerical flattery, a smaller number on the tag means nothing if the clothes don’t actually fit. After all, the sexiest thing about a great outfit was never the size on the label. It’s the confidence of the woman wearing it.