Do you like high-waisted trousers?
High-waisted trousers? Explore the debate on whether they lengthen legs, hide a belly or are just a nuisance. The 1/3 torso vs 2/3 legs ratio and more.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
High-waisted trousers: classic style or modern torture?
The ideal proportion is 1/3 for the torso and 2/3 for the legs, but today's fashion imposes a low rise that visually shortens the limbs. Supporters of the high rise argue that it lengthens the silhouette and hides a beer belly, while critics dismiss them as uncomfortable and only suitable for slim bodies.
The proportion that divides opinion
The classic aesthetic canon places the natural waist at the navel, creating a 1/3 split for the torso and 2/3 for the legs. This cut flatters the figure and adds presence, as photographs from the 1940s and 1950s show, considered the golden age of trousers. However, since the mid-20th century the rise gradually dropped until reaching today's trend of sagging trousers that show underwear, a style purists call "shabby".
Ally or enemy of the belly?
This is where the debate turns visceral. While some claim that a high rise holds the stomach in and stops it bulging over the belt, others reply that the belly is always there, and pulling the trousers up only makes it look even bigger. The classic solution is braces, which anchor the garment at the natural waist without needing to squeeze. But the modern man, used to belts, rejects this option as unhygienic or outdated.
Comfort is also in question. Those who have tried it complain that having the stomach inside the trousers along with the crotch is unbearable, and that the rise tends to slip down when sitting. However, other users point out that with the right size and no belly, the high rise is actually more comfortable than the low one, which squeezes the hips.
Fashion as a political weapon
Discussions reach conspiratorial heights when fashion is linked to social control. The argument goes that the textile industry, dominated by interests indifferent to sensual dimorphism, has imposed cuts that feminise the male figure, shortening legs and eliminating verticality. At the same time, fabric quality has plummeted: wool and linen have been replaced by polyester, and quality cotton has been displaced by synthetic fibres that force clothes to be replaced after just a few washes.
The low-rise trend is no accident; it responds to a strategy of planned obsolescence and the elimination of classic elegance. Against this, bringing back high-waisted trousers is an act of aesthetic and functional resistance.
The question remains open: are we seeing a return to elegance or a passing fad that nobody knows how to wear well? The only certainty is that the battle for the waistline goes on.
Related forum debates
The ideal proportion is 1/3 for the torso and 2/3 for the legs, but today's fashion imposes a low rise that visually shortens the limbs. Supporters of the high rise argue that it lengthens the silhouette and hides a beer belly, while critics dismiss them as uncomfortable and only suitable for slim bodies.
The proportion that divides opinion
The classic aesthetic canon places the natural waist at the navel, creating a 1/3 split for the torso and 2/3 for the legs. This cut flatters the figure and adds presence, as photographs from the 1940s and 1950s show, considered the golden age of trousers. However, since the mid-20th century the rise gradually dropped until reaching today's trend of sagging trousers that show underwear, a style purists call "shabby".
Ally or enemy of the belly?
This is where the debate turns visceral. While some claim that a high rise holds the stomach in and stops it bulging over the belt, others reply that the belly is always there, and pulling the trousers up only makes it look even bigger. The classic solution is braces, which anchor the garment at the natural waist without needing to squeeze. But the modern man, used to belts, rejects this option as unhygienic or outdated.
Comfort is also in question. Those who have tried it complain that having the stomach inside the trousers along with the crotch is unbearable, and that the rise tends to slip down when sitting. However, other users point out that with the right size and no belly, the high rise is actually more comfortable than the low one, which squeezes the hips.
Fashion as a political weapon
Discussions reach conspiratorial heights when fashion is linked to social control. The argument goes that the textile industry, dominated by interests indifferent to sensual dimorphism, has imposed cuts that feminise the male figure, shortening legs and eliminating verticality. At the same time, fabric quality has plummeted: wool and linen have been replaced by polyester, and quality cotton has been displaced by synthetic fibres that force clothes to be replaced after just a few washes.
The low-rise trend is no accident; it responds to a strategy of planned obsolescence and the elimination of classic elegance. Against this, bringing back high-waisted trousers is an act of aesthetic and functional resistance.
The question remains open: are we seeing a return to elegance or a passing fad that nobody knows how to wear well? The only certainty is that the battle for the waistline goes on.
Related forum debates
- Some birds have built a nest in my house and, as I'm told, I can't remove it because it's a protected species. · 63 replies
- Peine 2. · 50 replies
- Forsa Aleti... The one and only thread about Atlético de Madrid (VI) · 32524 replies
- Official thread to support Crystal Palace in their match against the slobs · 60 replies
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (37 replies).
More summaries
-
One-Hit Wonders: Acclaimed Albums With Just One Great Song
From Pet Sounds to Tubular Bells, many classic albums rely on just one or two tracks. Is this a myth or a matter of listening?
-
Forum debate on lawyer Sandra Arévalo: fees, jokes and tangents
A forum thread mixes questions about lawyer Sandra Arévalo's fees with jokes and game theory. Her identity remains unconfirmed.
-
Tinder date's physical surprise exposes the harshness of online dating
A Tinder date with a physical surprise sparks a chorus of crude comments. A portrait of how dating apps reward visual impact.
-
A 6.75 for a stranger: anonymous users rating women's bodies
One photo, ten comments and a 6.75: how anonymous juries measure women and fuel the identity culture war.
-
Awela Atr0z complaint dismissed: justice or impunity
The complaint filed by Awela Atr0z has been dismissed for lack of evidence. Celebration and outrage in equal measure. Justice or impunity?
-
Jealous partner resents your cat: the warning sign nobody saw
A cat that never hissed at anyone hissed at her owner's girlfriend, and the relationship barely lasted a round. Jealousy toward a pet is a red flag you shouldn't ignore.