I was wondering why old men have high wastelines, the “pants rising to the armpits” routine. Is this biological over time? What is the reason for this (disorder?)
It’s because they’re fat.
Just my two cents:
I’ve started developing a pot-belly over the last few years, and it seems that you have three choices when it comes to keeping your pants up.
First, you can just tighten your belt. This only works to a certain extent, and at some point you’re belted in to the point of pain.
Second, you can wear suspenders. That is what I do. They hold your pants up quite well. I wear a belt with them, though, because my shirt tends to come untucked all the time if I just wear suspenders.
Third, you can buy pants with a high waist and fasten your belt above your belly. I suspect that this is where the observed phenomenon comes from. Rather than face up to having a pot-belly and doing something reasonable (I’m trying to lose weight, btu wear suspenders in the mean time,) a lot of men just decide to pull their pants up higher and pretendthat they can still wear the same size pants they always have.
look at some old movies from the 40s and 50s you should see the people wearing their pants higher then we do today. They are just wearing clothes in the way they grew up wearing them. 
It really has to do with inseams and waist size in pants.
As pants get larger around the waist, the inseam gets bigger. Combine that with the pot belly and lack of an ass that comes as men get older and the only way to keep pants up - even with a belt- is to hunch them up to the gut, well above the hips, and hope friction keeps them there.
The extra inseam capacity means the pants can be hunched up further than normal before the insame invades the family jewels living space.
Just 1-2" of hunching up the pants can make pants look like “floods” or “high waters”.
Definitely more common in men who:
- have no ass due to muscle atrophy from aging
- have a little belly
I’ve researched this before for a friend who went on to design clothes. Suspenders are the only way of keeping the pants up, and to keep them looking like high-waters, the wearer should buy all future pants 2" longer. For example, if they wear a 40" waist and 30" length. They might need a 42" waist to get the pants up and over the belly (instead of wedged under the gut), and they should buy pants with a 32" length (since they are now pulling the pants over the belly). Most men just add to waist size of the pants and pull them up and over the gut. They neglect to buy pants that are longer as well.
For me, it’s the realization that, with the wisdom of age, wearing my pants higher is more damned comfortable. And it’s usually with ''dress" pants, as opposed to jeans. Plus, dress pants tend to be just that–dressy–and of nice material; they are enjoyable to be garbed in. Dockers and Levis are still comfy, but aren’t really dressy. Those low-slung styles are just that–styles–that do look better on younger people, who, if I recall my own experience accurately, will put themselves through nearly any discomfort as long as they look stylish.
Ok, so where should a man wear his pants?, exactly where is the waistline in the opinion of the “fashion police”?.
unclviny
Older people are often a couple inches shorter than they once were. They also often don’t stand on ceremony and don’t feel inclined to go out and buy a new wardrobe when they have all the clothes they need. So the pants they have look higher.
My $0.02, but the other answers make sense too.
Just below the navel, or such that no part of the lower body extends beyond/over the beltline.
Interesting that this thread should come up. I recently was given my fathers family album. Lots of pictures of my grandparents and great uncles from the 40’s (great uncles would have been in their mid to late twenties) Most if not all of the men had pants that were high on the waistline. I thought that they actually looked pretty cool myself. I thought maybe I might buy me a pair of “retro” slacks just to see what I would look like. By the way I am over 30 and in great shape. (although an argument about my sense of style being in great shape could probably be argued)
And the old folks look at us and wonder why we wear our pants so low.
I hope this doesn’t mean that in another sixty years we’re going to have a bunch of grandpas walking around with their asses hanging out. Not a pretty sight. :eek:
Remember that people get shorter as they get older, and clothes don’t shrink as fast as the wearers. And we all know how stubborn old people are about buying new clothes, so they have to keep their pants on somehow, and it’s better to let them ride high than to let the cuffs drag. :smack:
Could it also be from back problems? We had a librarian when I was at parochial school who seemed to have scoliosis, and she always wore her skirts hitched up right under her breasts.
Our pants are the same height they’ve always been. We’re just melting.
I am an old man. I have a pot belly, and no ass. If I wear my pants comfortably loose, they fall off. I am thinking of getting overalls.
I am not fashionable. But that’s not an old man thing, I was never fashionable. In High School I wore black shoes, with tan pants, and a knit shirt. (No pocket protector, but I did have a slide rule with a carrying case.) It was 1963.
Tris
“It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims.” ~ Aristotle ~
when i was a lad and we wore edwardian dress…teddy boys
we used to get 6" waisband put on our drainpipes
we werent fat.
and the pockets were far down
look at shots of isambard k brunel in the shipyards
his waist is just under his clavicle.
now i am fat and it feels more secure to have the pot under cover
ps the family jewels have been hocked
just imitations now:D
If you shrunk a few inches, wouldn’t the pants look longer?
I bet that’s what you say to all the girls… What an excellent post, Tris – or can we call you Gran’paw Walton ?
ps. I think you’ve found the answer; Overalls !!