# Guys: Over Or Under?



## markar (Feb 25, 2007)

I was just wondering whether you wear your pants over or under your stomach. 

I still wear it over, and I've been shopping for pants recently and it would be so much easier if I chose to measure from under my stomach. It just feels weird.


----------



## fat hiker (Feb 28, 2007)

Under. Over just slides down, unless I wear braces (suspenders) - and sometimes even then.


----------



## lemmink (Mar 1, 2007)

My bf wears them under. Means we don't have to get new pants for him.


----------



## Deepfriedness (Mar 1, 2007)

I wear mine under, mostly so I don't have to buy expensive plus size jeans (though I suppose it's only a matter of time :eat1: ) .


----------



## HDANGEL15 (Mar 1, 2007)

*Nothing finer then a small or huge belly hanging over a low slung pair of jeans  *


----------



## kattylee (Mar 1, 2007)

This lead me on to a probably dumb question......

My bf is now buying 38 pants and wears them low with his belly much bigger. This must surely mean that his actual waist size is bigger??


----------



## bigplaidpants (Mar 1, 2007)

kattylee said:


> This lead me on to a probably dumb question......
> 
> My bf is now buying 38 pants and wears them low with his belly much bigger. This must surely mean that his actual waist size is bigger??



Hey all. I'm an FA. I usually hang out on the other boards. <waives> 

Kattylee, this is a really interesting question. I, too, wear a 38. And, my belly does also hang over my belt a bit. 

<Just a minute, you made me curious. I'm gonna measure.> 

My belly 'round my belly button is around a 44.

I have to say, though. My understanding is that my waist measurement is a 38. That is what I generally wear when I have a suit fitted, etc. My understanding is that men and women are measured at different spots on their torso for the waist measurements.

I'm happy to be corrected, however. 

Cheers


----------



## missaf (Mar 1, 2007)

I think it makes more sense for under. Seriously. I don't get the over wearing and the need for extensions and suspenders, etc... My father drives me insane with this.

On the other hand, I think under is far more sexy, too!


----------



## Fuzzy (Mar 1, 2007)

Under, and my waistline hasn't changed in years; the belly just runneth over.


----------



## Pinkbelly (Mar 2, 2007)

under here too


----------



## kattylee (Mar 2, 2007)

Oh right... well surely that means that shopping (for pants at least) is easier for BHM's (in comparison to BBWs) because their actual waist measurement will stay around the same, and their belly will just hang over it? Does the bit beneath the belly actually get fatter, but at a slower rate? From a purely bely worship point of view, it's great that this happens, as surely it defines the belly more?

BHM's, what are your views?

x


----------



## Tad (Mar 2, 2007)

It depends on how you ar built, at least in part.

My belly sits fairly low. For me to have my pants really under my belly I'd be wearing them like the skater-boys. However I've gotten fat enough that they won't stay up at the level of where the pants are expecting my waist to be--that is, they go part way under, and are therefore somewhat saggy and baggy in the crotch and seat. Not the best of looks, however from what I've found, even in "Big and Tall" stores, they don't really change the proportions of pants much as they increase the waist size. I wish they'd make one with lots of room in the seat (I've got a fairly big backside), but cut a bit lower, designed to sit nicely under the belly. Actually some day when our finances are in a bit better shape I'm so going to get a suit tailored by a good tailor who hopefully knows how to do this sort of thing.

Also, because my pants don't sit all the way below my waist, the actual waist size I have to buy has kept going up. So right now I'm wearing a 42" waist in trousers, while the actual measurement of about where they go around is about 44", and the equator of my belly is more like 46-47". 

On the other hand, other big guys don't seem to have the same extent of problems that I do about where the waist sits, so I think this is mostly my private rant--some combination of my build and pickiness.

-Ed


----------



## Zandoz (Mar 2, 2007)

Over, here....but not as a fashion statement, but rather of necessity. At 475+ it would be a major battle (if not impossible) to reach around the belly to fasten them...or keep them up when I stand up <shrug>


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 2, 2007)

My hubby wears them under...and I love it when he comes to hug me when I am sitting down...I just go up his shirt and cop a feel of his soft belly  I know...Im a perv and Im going to hell, lol.


----------



## zonker (Mar 2, 2007)

Under. 

Your belly just naturally pushes your pants southward, and there's not fighting it.

Now, as you gain weight, you will notice not only that the waist sizes need to be bigger, but also that the inseam sizes start getting shorter.

I used to be a waist 30 and inseam 30. Now, waist 42 (really measures 45") and inseam 28... Getting shorter and fatter?

Also, my belly is 5 inches bigger around than my "waistline", so there is no way (other than suspenders) that my jeans wouldn't drift down if I tried to cover my belly with my pants...

Plus, it just looks better, I think.


----------



## kattylee (Mar 2, 2007)

> Now, as you gain weight, you will notice not only that the waist sizes need to be bigger, but also that the inseam sizes start getting shorter.
> 
> I used to be a waist 30 and inseam 30. Now, waist 42 (really measures 45") and inseam 28... Getting shorter and fatter?






Ah... this might explain why it is fairly hard to find large waist sizes in a 34 leg. 

Guys...fancy posting your trouser/actual belly measurements?

xx


----------



## zonker (Mar 2, 2007)

kattylee said:


> Ah... this might explain why it is fairly hard to find large waist sizes in a 34 leg.
> 
> Guys...fancy posting your trouser/actual belly measurements?
> 
> xx



Well, we've all known for some time that women's sizes were undergoing deflation as women's bodies are undergoing inflation. People talk about Marilyn Monroe wearing a size 14; that was the size then, now it would probably be more of a 9. And to further confuse things, there's miss sizes, junior sizes, plus sizes. 

Well, the same thing has happened with men's clothing. And in jeans, we also have slim fit all the way up to "comfort fit". And just as "relaxed fit" for women means, "Relax, and have another serving of ice cream!" men's "comfort style" means, "Get comfortable, and keep those chips and beer handy." :eat1: :eat2: :eat1: :eat2: 

It's a great exercise to take a tapemeasure and measure the waistband, button to buttonhole. You will not find that the measurement is what is on the tag.

I've found that the sizes of pants and belts are not what is written the tag. I discovered this when I could still squeeze my 36" waist (with a 41" belly) into 32" waist Dockers and 32" waist Levi's 560 Comfort fit. In reality, the Dockers measured 34" and the Levi's measured 35". So I could weigh nearly 65 pounds more than I did in high school, have a belly 11" bigger than my hard abs were at graduation, and still attend my 11th high school reunion, wearing pants which say on the tag that I've only gotten two inches bigger around!

And check out belts, especially those stretchy leather woven belts. They are much longer than the tags say. And a Hagar, non-stretchy woven belt, which says 38" actually has holes in it which range from 40" to 45".

Further, these companies are complicit in making everyone feel good about themselves. They are well aware of what they do. I recently bought some new Dockers (not with a stretchy waistband) and an attached tag says this:

The One and Only Dockers Individual Fit Waistband
An invisible extra inch.

A waistband technology that allows these pants to give at least 1 inch in the waist for a greater level of comfort and an individually precise fit. Try them on and feel the difference.

These Dockers which have no stretch in the waistband that I can tell have this mysterious technology, huh? Must be the reason that when I take a tapemeasure to the waistband, it is really 3" bigger than the tag says it is. Ah, the wonders of technology!

So here's my trouser size/ actual measurement. Dollar store jeans -- 
41" waistline size on tag
Actual waistline of jeans when measured 44"
And my waistline is 45" (I can kind of rearrange my fat to fit into these, maybe a bit tight)


----------



## sweetnnekked (Mar 2, 2007)

My belly hangs too low below my waist, so wearing pants below my belly is too uncomfortable. Therefore, I have to order pants larger(72) than my actual waist size(68).


----------



## Feedee81 (Mar 2, 2007)

defenetly under the stomach.it looks and feels better.:wubu:


----------



## persimmon (Mar 2, 2007)

The one big guy I dated who wore his pants up around his bellybutton had a definite lateral crease to wear them at. My spousal unit now wears them under the gut, since he has (as he says) "kind of an abrupt shelf".

It seems like pants cut to fit under the belly usually aren't as roomy in other regions, which makes shopping terribly traumatic when your boy has plenty of junk in the trunk.

Traumatic for him, that is. :doh: :smitten:

Oh, I'm such an evil wife.

persimmon


----------



## bigrugbybloke (Mar 6, 2007)

definitely under especially if you have a beer belly! whilst i am about 58" around the gut, i'm about 42" underneath, so 42" jeans fit nicely below. 58" jeans look ridiculous on my body!


----------



## zonker (Mar 6, 2007)

persimmon said:


> It seems like pants cut to fit under the belly usually aren't as roomy in other regions, which makes shopping terribly traumatic when your boy has plenty of junk in the trunk.
> 
> Traumatic for him, that is. :doh: :smitten:
> 
> ...



Well, if you decide to help his clotheshopping experience be less traumatic (doesn't seem likely, haha), try for pleated front pants, also, I've seen these pants by George brand which have little stays in them and an expanding waistline. The stays make it look like just regular pleats, but they extend out quite big, allowing more room for the waist and bottom..... And, of course, "relaxed" fit or "comfort" fit seem code words for fat-arse jeans.

Also thick-thighed and big-arsed,
Zonker


----------



## BigManJeff (Mar 9, 2007)

I wear mine under.

I wear 40 jeans, if I wore my pants around my bellybutton I would have a tough time finding jeans. Around the gut, I am 63 inches. heh


----------



## bigrugbybloke (Mar 9, 2007)

BigManJeff said:


> I wear mine under.
> 
> I wear 40 jeans, if I wore my pants around my bellybutton I would have a tough time finding jeans. Around the gut, I am 63 inches. heh



nice, i hope you dont mind me saying! :blush: planning on getting any bigger? i guess you gain in the same area as me, mostly in the gut!


----------



## BigManJeff (Mar 9, 2007)

bigrugbybloke said:


> nice, i hope you dont mind me saying! :blush: planning on getting any bigger? i guess you gain in the same area as me, mostly in the gut!



About 30 pounds more, but that's it.


----------



## fat hiker (Mar 11, 2007)

Yes, the difference in men's pants sizes depending on 'fit' can be quite bizarre - in relaxed fit Levi's, a 38 is fine, but in other brands and fits I can need a 40 or 42!


----------



## sparkee1958 (Mar 12, 2007)

Because I have a food belly, not a beer belly, mine tends to hang quite low. Even though wearing them under might be more comfy, because I am slightly taller than average(6'1"), finding shirts that would actually be long enough to cover my belly this way is difficult at best. Of course, in private for my significant other, that isn't an issue .


----------



## CartmanUK26 (Mar 12, 2007)

Well my waist is around 56/58" (in theory, at least that is what my trousers say) and I wear my trousers there because quite honestly they would fall down otherwise.

The problem is I always wore them on my waist and as I got bigger my waist stayed in the same place and the belly grew around it so I have a crease, which isn't great but I can't fix it now! And there is just no way I can wear them below.

But honestly if I didn't wear a belt they would just fall down anyway, because to get trousers which fit over the lower part of my belly they and reach my actual waist they have to be "too big" which means waist wise I am probably nothing like 56/58".

Still, if they were below they would fall down WITH a belt, which I think I'd quite like to avoid.

Trouser waist = person waist, out of necessity these days but by choice anyway, I wouldn't have em low if I was thin so why compromise!

I'm out for now, went on a bit... sorry!

Rich


----------



## LrgrThnLf (Mar 12, 2007)

I wear my pants below at the moment and have recently moved up to 46" (3XL here in Aus)... what I'm noticing though is that as my gut hangs over.. it can get a bit sore when I'm seated for extended periods as waistband digs in.. even if it's fairly loose.. not sure what to do.. perhaps no belt at all and go braces??


----------



## popeyepa (Mar 19, 2007)

sparkee1958 said:


> Because I have a food belly, not a beer belly, mine tends to hang quite low. Even though wearing them under might be more comfy, because I am slightly taller than average(6'1"), finding shirts that would actually be long enough to cover my belly this way is difficult at best. Of course, in private for my significant other, that isn't an issue .



Yes, i have the same problem finding long shirts I'm 6'0" so i am an over guy


----------



## persimmon (Mar 19, 2007)

sparkee1958 said:


> Because I have a food belly, not a beer belly, mine tends to hang quite low. Even though wearing them under might be more comfy, because I am slightly taller than average(6'1"), finding shirts that would actually be long enough to cover my belly this way is difficult at best. Of course, in private for my significant other, that isn't an issue .



Yeh, even though my fellow is average-type height for a North American man, he wears shirts in tall sizes to cover all the eye candy since the pants go under.

That is, I get him shirts in tall sizes to cover all the eye candy. That's true love, yo. Much heavier and he might become a convert to the Sect of Over.

persimmon


----------



## roundbird (Mar 23, 2007)

Absolutely under! If you wear them over you look like your great grandfather.


----------



## HDANGEL15 (Mar 23, 2007)

roundbird said:


> Absolutely under! If you wear them over you look like your great grandfather.


*

SECOND THAT*


----------



## CartmanUK26 (Mar 23, 2007)

That is a sweeping generalisation, it's obviously wrong, and I am offended  where you wear them is dependant on more than just style as I have said before and I know that I have to wear mine over and that certainly doesn't age me!

Rich


----------



## Boochan (Mar 23, 2007)

Definitely under the belly here.
If I had to wear them over it I would need to firstly buy absolutely everything, and secondly it would be a lot more annoying.

Though I know the one advantage of wearing them over is occasionally an awesome looking double belly, but thats not for me anyway


----------



## bigdaddyj (Mar 23, 2007)

I wear mine over as well. And it doesn't make me look older. It's all in how you wear them I guess. They are not pulled up to my armpits or anything. LOL.


----------



## roundbird (Mar 23, 2007)

Sorry. Of course you're correct that it depends on you're individual shape, but in my case, over is for sure not a good thing. My personal observation is that my "sweeping generalization" is generally true for most. Of course nothing in this world, or any other I'm aware of, is true for everybody.


----------



## PolarKat (Mar 24, 2007)

Impossible to wear them under, I'm guessing the guys who do must have real thin calves/thighs, and can get a much smaller pant size on..


----------



## Boochan (Mar 24, 2007)

PolarKat said:


> Impossible to wear them under, I'm guessing the guys who do must have real thin calves/thighs, and can get a much smaller pant size on..


I guess it varies on what sizes you find.
My ones are a bit odd in that they're a 48" waist and 36" leg, as well as been stretchy they are very comfortable. Shame they're now hard to find as I grow..


----------



## BeeBee (Mar 26, 2007)

It depends on how you are built and how big you are... 8 or 9 years back I was around 450 lbs, and that was definitely over the belly territory for me.. I lost about half of that and now suffering from "Atkin's revenge", lol...and am at the point where under doesn't work so well anymore. Over is more comfortable but I need suspenders either way, and nothing is more annoying than having suspender clips digging into the belly when you wear smaller pants under. 

View attachment OverAndUnder.jpg


----------



## Mr.Bellyfool (Mar 26, 2007)

Under 4 me. Size 38.


----------



## EverythingsBiggerinTX (Mar 30, 2007)

I wear mine over the ol' gut. size 56


----------



## eightyseven (Mar 31, 2007)

Under. It's just the style, and it's more comfortable for me. I'm a 44-46... which happens to be the size just over what's sold in normal clothing/department stores. It's frustrating. I don't mind my size at all... I just want to get back to where shopping at Old Navy or Kohl's isn't frustrating anymore.


----------

