Trousers at the Waist

Virtually all sartorial books and guides are unanimous about the positive aesthetics that flow from wearing trousers at one's natural waist. While I was skeptical about this prior to my Great Sartorial Awakening (TM), having thought about the arguments, looked at multiple pics and sketches of men wearing their trousers in this fashion, and I am tentatively convinced.

But ... good luck finding trousers off the rack with a large enough rise to allow this. My natural waist is about an inch or two above my navel - just below my rib cage. That seems pretty high to me and when I try wearing OTR trousers there, it's damn near impossible and decidedly uncomfortable.

I gather that I'm not shopping in the right places, but I wonder if this is the sort of thing that one must go MTM for or even bespoke.

So I'm curious about how many of you are (1) persuaded by the case to wear your trousers at your natural waist, (2) actually go about wearing your trousers at your natural waist (note that 1 and 2 are two separate questions!), and (3) for those who do this, do you have trouble finding suitable dress slacks?

This is a pressing matter because I'm about to wade into the land of bespoke suits and dress wear and irreversible calls must be made on the trouser front.

When your fly is open, your belly button...or, more impressively...your nipples should show.

- B

I have precisely the same problem. (I'm definitely a 1, but much less often a 2.) Some companies sell long-rise sizes, but usually only at larger waist sizes. Custom is probably the best solution. Another is vintage clothing, which is certainly an experience.

One alteration I don't know much about is increasing rise on trousers. I imagine you could get a little by letting out the seat.

I think it looks good ... in old photographs. But on a younger guy, it strikes me as costumey. These days, a high waist is one that falls above the hip bones. I don't like it when trou are riding my junk, but I don't like nipple ticklers either. Brooks and the like are as high as I go.

If you have an old-school men's shop nearby, try there. I thought I might like a pair of high-waisted trou until I actually tried them on. Even the old men in the shop waved me off.

Our business unit was run by a Brit who was known as "Johnny High Trousers" because he wore his at the natural waist (in a business casual-to-very casual work environment).

I have a pair or two of higher waisted trousers. They are both part of separate three piece suits. I wouldn't be afraid of wearing them on their own or without a vest, however.

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Click to expand...

I think it looks good ... in old photographs. But on a younger guy, it strikes me as costumey. These days, a high waist is one that falls above the hip bones. I don't like it when trou are riding my junk, but I don't like nipple ticklers either.
But it's silly to call something that sits at the waist "high waisted." As refers to human anatomy, the word "waist" has only ever meant one thing in the history of the English language. It is the narrowest part of the torso. The only logical classification of trouser rise is this: *low-rise=below waist *at waist *high-waisted=above waist Trousers more than slightly above or below the waist are about as good as a jacket that buttons more than slightly above or below the waist. If people don't want to wear trousers at the waist, they should stop calling it the waistband.

While I appreciate your commitment to linguistic accuracy, I think your usage creates more problems than it solves. "High" is a relative term, and these days, trou can both sit at your waist and be "high waisted" in relation to the prevailing fashion.

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Click to expand...

"High" is a relative term, and these days, trou can both sit at your waist and be "high waisted" in relation to the prevailing fashion.

I suppose it's all relative. Still, it seems more sensible to speak relative to something that does not change rather than something that changes annually.

to find your natural waist.
place your fingers at the sides of your hips.
slides the fingers up and over the top corners of the hip bones.
that indent on top of the hips is your natural waist.

The problem is rise depends on the person.

11 inch might be low for a tall guy and really high for a shorter guy. If you buy off the rack you're stuck.

I've no problem finding pants that sit at my natural waist. Even jeans are almost at my natural waist.

Okay I'm old enough to remember when all pants were worn at a persons waist. But most of the people I see wearing low rise pants look horible. If you haven't seen your hip bones anyplace but a X ray low rise isn't for you.

To clarify: (Yes, ImageShack would have deleted it uncensored.)

Originally Posted by Nicola

Click to expand...

I've no problem finding pants that sit at my natural waist. Even jeans are almost at my natural waist.
It certainly is relative. I have a pair of jeans that says "sits at waist." They fall an inch short of my navel and several more short of my waist.

Originally Posted by a tailor

Click to expand...

to find your natural waist.
place your fingers at the sides of your hips.
slides the fingers up and over the top corners of the hip bones.
that indent on top of the hips is your natural waist.

This is the best advice about where to wear your trousers. Anything above or below this is for styling purposes or personal preferences. Waistband seam on the top of your hip bone and the trouser stays in place.

Originally Posted by Despos

Click to expand...

This is the best advice about where to wear your trousers. Anything above or below this is for styling purposes or personal preferences. Waistband seam on the top of your hip bone and the trouser stays in place.
Well, it's certainly not the "natural waist." It's also a low-rise trouser.

I prefer higher rise pants because I have short legs.