Do people think looking like a dysgenic, disproportionate mutant with an overly long torso and short hips and legs is a good look?

Well, I’m 6’5 and I don’t really like looking like a fucking daddy long legs so low rise is based

Would fuck any spider femanons lurking in webs thoughbeit

>>18485958
You're not going to look any shorter by wearing low rise. You just end up looking like a disproportionate mutant with an overly long torso.

The rule of thirds exists for a reason. It demarcates and highlights your body's natural proportions. Throughout history, even when people wore longer tops and outfits, they always made sure to tie their belt and sash at the natural waistline, because that's what healthy, normal humans are supposed to look like.

All those guys in the OP pic look weird with fridge like rectangular torsos, when a man's torso should ideally have a V-taper.

>>18485969
These niggas have their belts over their belly button wtf I agree with your point but this is som4 sort of Asian fashion

>>18485982
Dude, that's where everyone wore their belts because that's where your waist is.

>>18485943 (OP)
In the 90s and 2000s, it became sexy for girls to have low-rise jeans so they could show off their underwear or buttcrack. (IMO that shit is fucking disgusting and should be illegal as it's indecent exposure).
Then they invaded male fashion because it's cheaper to make shitty trousers in general with awful cuts, less room, and use practically the same pattern between men and women.
I don't think anyone actually likes low rise, it's just all trousers are low rise now except for milsurp. But then you look like a sperg if you overdo surplus. It's a lose-lose, fuck this gay ass planet.

>>18485997
>I don't think anyone actually likes low rise, it's just all trousers are low rise now except for milsurp.
Yeah, probably why most guys sag their low rise pants, to give themselves more room in the crotch region, otherwise they're too uncomfortable to wear.

And yeah, low rise jeans on women look disgusting. Besides the indecent exposure, it just looks weird, because they make their hips look shorter and torso longer, which is a masculine look. Women's hips are supposed to be taller and wider than men's.

OP on this board five years from now:
>What is the appeal of high rise pants?
>Do people think looking like a dysgenic, disproportionate mutant with an overly short torso and long hips and legs is a good look?

>>18486037
Except, that would not be dysgenic because high rise pants adhere to the natural proportions of the human body, making them more comfortable and aesthetic. Which is why they were the default type of pants throughout human history. High rise isn't some bullshit zoomer trend. Low rise is the unnatural exception that has overstayed its welcome for too long.

>>18486045
Wow it makes perfect sense you 20 year old autistic guy

>>18485943 (OP)
Because it's all that stores sell, so that's what people wear.

>>18485943 (OP)
>disproportionate mutant with an overly long torso and short hips and legs
Sounds like a (you) problem. Low rise looks goated just look at any early 2000s pic. You are just too ugly to rock them

>>18485969
People have different proportions to begin with. Blacks have short torsos with long legs, whites are medium, asians have short legs and long torsos. Low rise is for blacks, mid is for whites, high is for asians. Simple as.

>>18486063
No, it looks retarded and gay. This is where the low rise trend came from during the early 2000's. Faggots wearing saggy pants as if they walked straight out of their bedroom after a vigorous session of homosexual intercourse.

>>18486072
Notice here that the black guy has normal leg proportions with low rise and the white guys have ayy lmao torso lengths with them

>>18486073
Yeah, he does have a pretty short torso.

>>18486062
this. for most men, their options for high rise pants are either online or a lucky find in a thrift store.

>>18485943 (OP)
Low-rise is a humiliation ritual. If you wear this stupid fucking cut you are being a plaything of homosexual fashion designers.

>>18485997
>it's just all trousers are low rise now except for milsurp
It was like that in the 2010s, but nowadays High rise is trendy

>>18485943 (OP)
>what's the appeal
None. It was simply trendy at the time so people followed along and brands played a long. Like most "fashion" there was no point other than it was in at the time

>>18485943 (OP)
I have this by accident because my belt is too long so my pants are hanging by my hip bones.

>>18485943 (OP)
It makes you look less stocky

>>18486284
I think it's also because most men are fat these days. So instead of wearing pants that fit their true waistline, they get smaller, lower pants so that they can wear their pants at their crotch and pretend they're still thin.

>>18485969
Do you have a mustache, wear vintage wide leg pants and crop all your short sleave button ups with scissors?

>>18486502
No, I'm not gay.

>>18486500
You gotta wear suspenders to make the first one work if you're fat

>>18486533
Been wearing suspenders this year, much more comfy than belts tbqh.

Not effay but comfy.

Gonna get some high waist fishtails with button up flannel shirts and suspenders.

>>18486500
I'll admit to being fat now, but I was skinny through my 20s and I was never able to wear anything above mid-rise, I just don't have the natural waist for it and I'd always end up waddling around with the crotch seam almost between my knees when I tried to wear high-rise stuff, no matter what I did with belts or anything.

I feel like there's actually a widespread genetic difference between older millennials like me and younger people, even at the same weight/fitness level there's a noticeable difference in build. There were tons of people with boxy or stick builds when I was young and that meant low rise was a better fit, while young skinny people now still have more defined hourglass shapes with wider hips that suit the high-rise stuff more.

>>18485982
>asian
Belts around the waist were in every culture at some point. Even Santa has one. It's for the tunic/long shirt to not look shapeless and can serve as a pocket.

>>18485982
Not everything is Japanese weeb shit

>>18486502
I have a mustache and beard, I wear wide pants so i don't rip the fabric if i have to squat to pick up a heavy object but not vintage, I don't crop my shirts.

https://vocaroo.com/1kcPxv80Y5ae

>>18486045
autistic and cant comprehend people having different style choice to your own, get skellymode and youll see the appeal.

Show us men wearing high rise without looking like they're going to the carnival

Because way before you were born, old and unattractive people wore high rise baggy pants, and this was the reaction, just like how your high rise baggy pants are a reaction to old and unattractive people wearing low rise skinny pants. You are not special, you have no insights, no opinions that are your own, and you are just a brainless consoomer buying what you were told to buy, I'm sorry you had to find out this way.

Low rise jeans were meant to look like they were slipping off to show an Adonis belt or for women to accentuate their hips if they were wearing a crop top. They were form over function. Like a bra to show cleavage.

>>18486072
This. Low rise jeans were meant to look sexual, hence the exposed underwear. Girls with tramp stamps wore them for the obvious reason of showing the tattoo and their thong.

>>18487721
You do realize what you're asking requires the man in question to have his shirt tucked in to show off how long the rise is?
Some wear high rise but also a long shirt untucked to hide any strange fabric bulges when you bend at the waist slightly, like myself. Its just looks strange sometimes.

>>18487721
>>18487750
Yeah you not going to find a modern picture of a male with high rise pats with his shirt tucked in.
They don't do that anymore

>>18485943 (OP)
Why the fuck ain't they wear jeans?
>>18485660
>>18485753

>>18487721
With pleasure (no homo).

>>18487751
ASOS sells them right now.

>>18485997
>Then they invaded male fashion because it's cheaper to make shitty trousers in general with awful cuts, less room, and use practically the same pattern between men and women.
This, but I think from a style standpoint people were afraid of higher rises because they thought it made them look stuffy and childlike "my mom bought me these"

>>18487750
Arnold is Cray Cray

>>18489008
I think it's also just because high rise was seen as really outdated. Just look at these threads, the most recent inspo pics are usually from the '80s or early '90s, so it's what millennials remember their parents wearing when they were little - in fact, people have probably forgotten this now, but when high-rise jeans first started coming back into fashion in the '10s they were often called and marketed as "mom jeans" - and being "what your parents wore" is pretty much always a recipe for things being unfashionable and the current gen swinging the opposite way.

Whoops, sorry. Didn't mean to mog you so hard

>>18485969
These people tie the belt above where the legs meet the torso so it appears that they have more favorable body proportions then what they actually do. The guys in the OP picture shows what their actual proportions are, and if you have good torso to leg ratio then such a fit will draw attention to that. The picture of the asians shows they are basically faking their torso length ratio.

it's incredible how generation after generation of kids can't fathom that fashion cycles exist and everything that is wildly fashionable now is just an overreaction to something that was wildly fashionable before. all your cope words like "timeless" are just retroactively applied to justify the fad

>>18485943 (OP)
dude on the right is killing it in those low rises bro

>>18486211
you'd be surprised. it's trendy, yes, but most mainstream stores have only went mid-rise at best while adopting relaxed leg fits.

>>18486830
now that you mention it, as an older millennial I've had this problem

>>18489030
The tag of "mom jeans" and "dad jeans" is probably what killed high rise non-skinny/slim jeans the most in 2010s.

>>18485943 (OP)
This is just how fat people wear pants, under the gut

>>18487870
These guys just look old for wearing their pants just below their armpits.
No amount of squawking will change how modern and cooler pants rest at the hips.

>>18490058
Even worse, "autism jeans." I recently got some Wranglers that have a pretty light wash, mid rise, and are semi-baggy (basically just loose straight) so they're basically totally normal these days, but every time I look down at my feet in them "autism jeans" is all I can think and I can't bring myself to wear them with anything other than boots even though I know nobody would bat an eye seeing them with regular shoes these days, it just feels so fucking cringe to me. I wasn't ever even a skinny jeans guy either.

>>18490070
Are you dumb or are you stupid? The armpits are nowhere near the pants.
Even if you you have pants with a massive rise all you have to do is not tuck in your shirt and they will look like low rise but you still get the range of motion benefits and not expose yourself to desperate house husbands in your area

>>18490070
Your body type is fucked up if wearing mid rise pants can touch your armpits

>>18490070
You know you have to pull your pant leg up a little everytime you squat down?
You don't need to do that with high rise pants

>>18486841
Wtf Derbys in the desert

I win the argument

>>18490207
When I wear high rise pants I have to pull them up like every 30 seconds because they inevitably end up at my hips.

>>18490224
Have you tried a belt, or tie them tighter?
Is your natural waist thinner than your hips or wider like an American?