The not-so-new change to jean and trousers that sit " below the waist" has me somewhat perplexed, even though over the last couple of years I've finally ditched all my regular waistline, pleat-front wool trousers (no rotten tomatoes, please). These were admittedly older vintage, and so needed to be ditched even if re-interpreted in a fresher version, and I don't regret making a change.

However, I find the lower-waist trousers really difficult for defining a waist. By definition, if you tuck in a top and belt at the loops, you've "defined" a horizontal line at your not-smallest area; then your top blurs the natural waist. Sure, you can compensate a bit with a fitted woven shirt or knit top, but it has to be perfectly fitted there to even approach the look of having a belt closer to the natural waistline. So, most folks it appears to me, IRL and on these pages, go untucked or end up surrendering the waist even if not thinking they are wearing a true "waist-surrendering" top.

I've done some belting-over-the-top and that's interesting, too. It can work okay for a heavy top fabric, but otherwise a waist-sitting belt has to ride above the pants' waist and the waistband, no matter how flat you aim to get it, sticks out in silhouette. Then you can of course belt lower on the hips--hmm, but that's not the waist.

I get almost all of my "new" (lower-waisted) pants tailored to fit as snugly as possible in the so-called waist and still, because they ride below my smallest zone, they don't feel quite as secure. I have a very thin flat belt I wear most times anyway even under tops. So I have had to live very untucked ever since I went in this direction.

Is this all in pursuit of having the smallest-looking booty zone possible by bisectiing that zone horizontally and so the "shirt" take up more visual space ? Because I'm finding that sacrifices a lot of other body-flattering looks.

A challenge for me is that I don't wear any significant heel height for most work days. That means, my leg line was longer when I had a blouse tucked into a higher-waist pant than if I have an untucked top or a belt that about bisects me if I wear relatively flat shoes.

Still, I'm glad I finally took stock and have become more style-aware in order to (try to) become unfrumped. What I was doing before wasn't really right, either and I've become more conscious of the total look, whether it's flat-front/bootcut/Hollywood style or other, for my shape/age/style.

Thanks to this site with Angie's blogs and tips from the forum, I realize I may be able to indulge my "waist tendencies" and even pleats if I pay attention to updating to new interpretations. It also means, I have learned to try to keep from buying too many of any one kind of pants ( or one kind of anything, really) in order to have room, budget and closet-wise, to pounce on some different styles that I like much better when they are more "in" and hang back when they are not.

I'm just not sure I "get" why the waistline is so unpopular in pants to the extent that it kind of "poisons" the eye so I'm no longer sure it's "acceptable" or is considered fringe and freaky. Of course it is much more acceptable make use of a natural waistline in skirts and dresses, but I don't wear those nearly as much in my work.

Anyone out there relate to these issues?