also, as women's clothes sizes are so arbitrary and differ dramatically depending on brand/style etc etc, how can Laura state definitively that her "actual size" is a size 16? based on what?! the whole issue with women's clothes sizes is that they are totally determined by the brand/shop, and not based on measurements in the way men's clothes sizes are determined by inches etc. she has stated that she sometimes wears a size 14, sometimes a 16 and that hideous blouse is a size 18 - thus her "actual size" in that specific new look blouse is a size 18. she hasn't "sized up", in exactlt that same way that when she buys a size 14, she hasn't "sized down". she has simply bought clothes that fit her.
as she is so fiercely against the variation in women's clothes sizes, i'm interested to know how she is comfortable with her range of love and unique dresses being labelled as size 12/14/16 etc? like sure, the website shares the measurements of each specific size, so it's easier to select the size that will fit properly, but who is she to determine the bust/hip/waist measurements of a UK size 16 etc? it may be that people who want to buy one of her vile dresses would class a 14 as their "actual" size, yet - according to the measurements of that specific brand, which are wildly different from the measurements if a size 14 in other brands, with some bigger and some smaller - they have to "size up" or "size down", or simply buy the dress that actually fits them because size is just a number. but ofc, Laura is never wrong, so the measurements of her range of dresses are accurate and correct, despite there being no guidelines as to what constitutes a certain size.