the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
The plus-size take is highly ironic, as athleisure wear is the one sector of fashion where the typical profitability/supply side issues of plus size fashion aren’t at play. Basically, there’s a high level of variability in women’s body shapes in the plus size range as compared to petite women and men. The best cut for a size 16 woman who’s got the exaggerated hourglass look is not going to be the same cut as what looks good on a size 16 woman who’s all belly and thighs. This means fashion companies need more shape variety which increases production costs and makes supply gauging more difficult.
But athleisure wear is skin tight leggings and loose tops, those concerns aren’t there. And plenty of other athleisure brands are pushing plus sizes so they’ve figured out how to make them profitable.