I think that men's pants manufacturers have been too slow in adapting to today's waist-line trends. More specifically, men are wearing their pants an inch or two lower these days than was the case in the past. While some jeans manufacturers have addressed this problem by moving up the crotch (more specifically, decreasing the distance from the "waist" to the "crotch"), far too few dress slacks manufacturers have followed suit (no pun intended). Perhaps this is to reduce intraoffice romance, so men's pants are not as compact in the crotch region, thus eliciting a carnal response in the fairer sex.
PositiveMode:
I've thought a lot about office-pants length, although not as much about the location of the crotch (though now I am sure to consider that thoroughly). I bought a pair of dress pants a few weeks ago that were a 30-inch inseam - even the 32 I would have had to wear too high. this seemed really weird because 30 is in the lower range of what you can get, yet i am somewhat above-average in height (these were, of course, particularly long for 30-inches but still).
I've thought a lot about office-pants length, although not as much about the location of the crotch (though now I am sure to consider that thoroughly). I bought a pair of dress pants a few weeks ago that were a 30-inch inseam - even the 32 I would have had to wear too high. this seemed really weird because 30 is in the lower range of what you can get, yet i am somewhat above-average in height (these were, of course, particularly long for 30-inches but still).
I think you can get fashionable work pants that are cut right, they're just harder to find, and you probably have to pay more.
I really hope that it has something to do with office romance.
NegativeMode:
That's pretty shocking that you purchased a 30-inch-inseam pant. I generally wear a 32 (and occasionally 33) and you're a good 3-4 inches taller than me. It's actually a pretty good mental picture of someone with really short legs but an incredibly long torso who is 6'2". You must be some kind of freak.
PositiveMode:
I don't think it's that I have freakishly short legs (or, alternatively, a shockingly long torso). I think these pants were just slighly long, and I think I like to wear them (gasp) even lower than you do. normally I wear a 32, and if I'm buying a suit, sometimes the salesman guy tries to but me into 34s but then they're usually up really too high.
NegativeMode:
That's pretty shocking that you purchased a 30-inch-inseam pant. I generally wear a 32 (and occasionally 33) and you're a good 3-4 inches taller than me. It's actually a pretty good mental picture of someone with really short legs but an incredibly long torso who is 6'2". You must be some kind of freak.
PositiveMode:
I don't think it's that I have freakishly short legs (or, alternatively, a shockingly long torso). I think these pants were just slighly long, and I think I like to wear them (gasp) even lower than you do. normally I wear a 32, and if I'm buying a suit, sometimes the salesman guy tries to but me into 34s but then they're usually up really too high.
2 comments:
Are you guys just really bored?
You think you have problems?
I have to buy short Capri pants and use them as full length. Or if I get normal pants, I have to spend a bloody fortune on having a foot of cloth cut off the bottom. I can shop for hours without being to find a pair of shoes I like in my size(5 1/2). Being small sucks.
...I almost kicked a woman's ass in the dressing room of Ann Taylor cause the bitch suggested I shop at GAP Kids.
if you're that small, you should consider shopping at GAP kids.
Post a Comment