My theory based on limited observation is that the older men are the higher they wear their pants. That doesn’t mean as you get older you start lifting them, but it seems to be a generational thing that they’ve gotten lower with each generation.
There also seems to be a difference between countries from what i’ve seen on TV (which may or may not match real life, hence why I ask) in that men from the USA tend to wear their pants higher than those in Australia, and the Europeans are higher yet again.
I tend to wear my pants low on the hips. The bottom of the belt sits just above the top of the arse crack and about an inch above the base of the penis at the front. Just high enough to cover the waist band of the underwear. I buy pants that fit when I wear them like that so I don’t a whole lot of saggy crotch.
Ladies, I’d be also interested in your perspective from a fashion sense what you think looks best.
From my observations, there are a couple of things going on with high pants. Firstly, as you age and your waistline spills over your hips, you no longer have a spot your belt can sit comfortably anymore, you have to find a new spot, which is generally an inch or two higher than it used to be.
But secondly, as you age your spine compresses. Having 15 spaces, or whatever it is, between your vertebrae means each one compounds its compression, whereas for your legs compression between joints only occurs in at most two places. So that means your legs are the same length they ever were, but your torso is now three inches shorter and somewhat bowed.
So my theory is that it’s an illusion your pants are higher, and actually it’s your torso that’s more compact.
Interesting theory. From observation I know my dad wore his pants higher than I do and my son wears his lower. He basically has to have the waist band of his underwear showing above the top of his pants.
The comment about europeans, I refer to the pictures of Putin running around shirtless, he’s a total harry highpants. See link. I’d call that above the hips.
My husband is 55, US, and he wears his pants low on the hips. This is partly a denial of his age, and partly a denial of his waistline. When we were young, hiphuggers were cool. Even when styles changed and higher rises came into fashion, my husband kept on putting those waistbands where he’d always put them. By doing this, he could also ignore the fact of just how big his waist had grown.
I’ve seen a lot of men his age who do about the same thing.
Low on the hips. I used to get bitched at when I was a kid for wearing my pants low. Everyone expected me to hitch my pants up so high that a belt would be across my stomach. Uncomfortable. Low on my hips just feels the most comfortable/natural.
I love the last few years’ trend of low-rise pants, I get pants that fit and look great at my favored level, without having baggy clothing.
I like 'em low and loose. Not gangsta low, but low enough that people sometimes wonder what’s holding them up. It’s still covering my ass, I’m not sure what the mystery is.
you also may get the MTE (multitool effect). if a person is of age when multitools became popular they may wear above the hips because of a weighted belt.
similarly is the TBE (tool belt effect) where if you wear a tool belt regularly then you might wear your pants high out of habit.
I don’t understand how anyone wears pants as low as so many of you guys do. And I’ve watched other people–they normally wear them at the navel, too. Not only does it make you look fatter, but, more importantly, guys don’t tend to have hips that can support pants. Their hips are much more flat than those of women and thus said pants will slide.
I mean, I knew my one fat friend who did this and thought everyone was stupid for wearing them on their navel, but I always assumed he did that because he couldn’t find pants big enough. And, of course, his hips were less flat than those of most people.
I mean, where I put them now I still have to occasionally watch out for plumber’s butt. It would be much worse down at my hips. Granted, I realize most of you are probably shorter than I am (or at least have shorter torsos) and thus can get untucked shirts long enough to cover for this problem. Or just always tuck in your shirts.
Unless you guys mean something different than I do by over the navel. I literally mean that’s where my waistband hits–right at the navel or just below it. Because, based on my interpretation, I can’t figure out what low on the hips means unless it is synonymous with the “gangsta” option.
BTW, I’m 28 and I’ve never worn pants differently. And, lest this become yet another way to make fun of me, neither has anyone else I’ve seen other than said friend.