The bolded part above made me laugh quite hard, thank you for making my day.On this basis of a fine thread which is currently generating much discussion on this forum - A matter of rising concern - I was compelled to consider my own personal position on this subject.
Not just my philosophical position, but also my physical position. If that does not sound misleading?
You see, I have always been aware that for a man, I have rather long legs. Not long in the scheme of things. I certainly wouldn't stand out as a freak if I attended a convention of Olympic high-jumpers. However, for a gentleman of only the apparent UK average stature of 5'9", there is no doubt that my inside leg is longer than that of most men my own height.
In short, I have a high waist!
Now, I can't be the only one out there. As almost all the illustrated Esquire characters of the 1940s must have found themselves in a similar position. Have you seen the height of some of their trouserage?
I would be encouraged to hear from any other gents out there who find themselves also contemplating the length of their own legs, and the height of their waist. I would also be encouraged if you would be willing to comment on whether your leg and waist position has ever influenced the type of trouser that you buy, or any decision to abolish belts in favour of side-adjusters, as I gladly did when I entered the fine world of personal tailoring!
I look forward hearing from you!
Now back to the pant discussion. I wear my pants at my navel (or just above it), a few inches above my low rise jeans. It definitely looks high compared to how a lot of men wear pants, but I like it because it looks more put together. Jeans are fine when worn low, but it looks sloppy when trousers are worn below the gut as if they were denim.