A Bad Style Mysteriously Endures–Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Since 2006, I have been writing about the sort of misguided clothing-choice pictured in this photograph. Garments that only rise to that area just above the groin cause both the grotesque “Muffin-Top” and the risible anomaly known as “Plumber’s Crack”, yet every year, THEY’RE BA-ACK!  Resist falling into fashion-victimhood, and stop risking your pants falling down. Wear your pants, trousers and skirts up at the waist,
and you will not look this idiotic. SIMPLE, isn’t  it?
©M-J de Mesterton 2012

Where Is the Waist? Editorial by M-J

Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Where is the waist? That’s what I wonder every time I look at photos of the newest “fashions.” What is new about the same old tragic clothing-concepts bobbing up again, masquerading as innovative? For the past ten years, pants and skirts have consistently been manufactured without even coming close to the waist, yet they are touted as the “latest.” To paraphrase General Honoré of Louisiana, someone’s “stuck on stupid.” I thought last spring that the tide of bad clothes was turning, but having perused some catalogues this month, it is apparent that clothing designers  are still denying their customers ample fabric to cover their “plumber’s cracks.” Snide cracks about “mom jeans” and thoroughly ignorant comments calling anything that indeed does come just up to the natural waist “high-waisted” are still being heard  and read by those of us who actually remember where the waist is located on the human corpus: the place for belts, sashes, snaps and buttons is an inch or two above the navel, depending upon one’s height. The designer of the human body gave us the waist as an elegant way of keeping our pants, skirts  and trousers from falling down; also to enhance our corporeal proportions. The true waist never comes below the navel, and it certainly cannot be found two inches above one’s crotch. Garments are falling down from where they rest on the hips, and the fashion world has insisted on staying down in the gutter after what seems to be a devastating, permanent fall from elegant, figure-enhancing style. Fashion-victims are afraid now to go against the hideous dictum that you must wear your clothes no higher than the hip. This is a big mistake, because if one follows the lines of his or her body, they will see that clothes descending from the waist lengthen the legs, while clothes that only come up to the hips turn even the slimmest among us into pot-bellied, short and sloppy -looking people who would have been laughed-at throughout the previous decades and centuries. Wearing six-inch heels to compensate for the bad deeds done to your figure by stingy clothing manufacturers and designers does nothing but make one look even sillier. Extra-high heels will damage both your feet and back, and will not give back the height robbed from you by idiotic torso-stretching trousers and skirts. For men, extra-long trousers do not visually lengthen your legs; rather, they make you look dumpy. The fail-safe, time-tested method of developing real glamour and style is to dress in natural, luxurious cloths and fabrics from the waist-down; wear two-to-three inch heels if you are a woman, and keep your trousers from heaping into a puddle on top of your shoes if you are a man. And don’t forget the stockings and socks. No one will notice that you are not blindly and self-destructively following bad fashion. But, they will wonder why on earth you look so good, while their trousers are slipping into the mire together with all sense of style. Now, there is the waist, our anchoring feature of elegant style. Pants, trousers and skirts constructed without it are a waste! © Copyright M-J de Mesterton; September 14th, 2010 Waist-to-Height Ratio and Your Health: an easy-to-use page that tells you how to find your waist, recommends its ideal measurement for your height, gender and age, calculates your body-mass index and displays one’s optimum daily caloric-intake.     Click Here to Read M-J’s Main Website, Elegant Survival


“Suave” Ain’t the Word when Pants are Falling Down…

…as are those of fashion-victim Mark Wahlberg at this year’s Golden Globe Awards.   Ever hear of the waist, which serves as a proper anchor for trousers? Marching in lock-step with the millions of unwitting pawns of the twisted fashion industry makes one look Lilliputian indeed. Alas, Wahlberg is not alone. When men wear the top of their trousers at hip-height instead of at waist-height, they rob their legs of length visually. If one’s legs look shorter than his torso, a brainwashed tailor is committing crimes upon his image. But mindless sheep continue to wear trousers at idiotic levels, erroneously believing that if the trousers pile up on top of their shoes, it will make up for length lost at the top. Nothing says “Mindless Followers United” like  a decade and a half of dressing in what appear to be hand-me-downs from their half-witted, short-legged siblings.

 To Expound further on Bad Trousers and Idiotic “Tailoring” in General: My Piece Entitled, “Hilarious Clothes”

Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Short, tight jacket with tiny, lumpy trousers–I found this photo of Justin Timberlake after viewing some seriously bad clothes on the fellow in December’s Esquire (U.K. Edition; see my picture below). So just what do high income and position get you these days? How about a tailor who doesn’t send you out looking like a Lilliputian, twisted freak, especially if you are gaining on six feet tall? The shorty-legs illusion wrought by trousers that are too tight and have a three-inch rise, the billowing shirt with nothing to tuck it into…this is the epitome of fashion-victimhood. People are so inured to the tragic look shown here that they would likely ask what I’m talking about. Therefore, I recommend reading  my article written in 2010, entitled “Remember Elegantly-Dressed Men?”

©M-J de Mesterton; January 3rd 2012


Back at the Golden Globe Awards: The beautiful Jessica Biel, now affianced to Justin Timberlake,  is wearing a feminine dress with long sleeves, reminiscent in some ways of the Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding gown. The site linked, which pictures her at the Golden Globes Awards, gives her dress a D-. I applaud her good taste, and give Ms Biel a high mark for standing apart from the one-shouldered, strapless-wearing followers of last year’s bad fashions. I’m not sure about the tall slit up the front of her gown, but she is much closer to perfect than the fashion victimettes who precede and follow her on the red carpet. Also, the lovely Jessica Biel would do well to wear stockings. In fact, the actresses on the red carpet should be wearing hosiery, but most of them are not. No evening gown looks finished without proper legwear, by which I mean stockings and garter-belt or at least panti-hose. There is no excuse for bare legs. When I was younger, I often visited my grandmother in Marina del Rey, California during January. There was never a heat or humidity factor then, and there isn’t now. Of course, I always wore dresses or skirts with panti-hose or stockings, since it was comfortable and mostly because it was the right thing to do..

It’s Not the Bagginess of Hip-Hop Trousers that Offends, Butt…

…I mean but the low-hanging thereof. My photo shows elegant baggy or wide-legged trousers. Baggy pants, as in Oxford Bags, have been chic for decades in classic clothing. But, most people, when referring to the problem of low-sagging pants (trousers) just use the term, “baggy pants”. That’s really unfair, since what is being excoriated is the plumber’s crack, a source of derision for all times. What people abhor is the hideous sagging lowdown pants/trousers style. It really amounts to indecent exposure–someone’s underwear and opening showing in front, and whatever you wish to call it bared in the back–that’s the issue. Here is an article which I was sent by Sweden’s The Local–News in English: