Poll Inspired by Wacki - Low Cut or High Waisted Pants?

[Rick Nebiolo]

Forget what's in style. What looks better on most women?

[yellowjack]

Low cut, I want to see the belly button and the stomach. Wouldn't pants at the belly button be uncomfortable for the women anyways?

[shant]

The only person who should wear pants that go higher then their belly button is my grandfather.

[thatpfunk]

High waist pants completely ruin a hot chicks ass.

St. Elmos Fire was on tv today and it made me thank god that girls dress how they do nowadays (slutty). It is a great time to be young(ish).

[jason_t]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/jason_t712/lcpoll.jpg

After Talk2BigSteve left, I thought there were no more gay members in OOT?

[ChoicestHops]

The people who voted high waist are simply kidding.

I hope.

[sfer]

Hey Rick, for future reference, you're talking the difference between high and low rise pants. And pants that sit on the natural waist (i.e. slightly below the belly button) are high rise pants.

Also, the reading comprehension is unsurprisingly low on OOT. "Most women" dooders.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
The people who voted high waist are simply kidding.

I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

or they are stuck in the 80s.

[jakethebake]

It's not the high-waistedness or low-waistedness of the jeans that I have issues with. It's that most of the low-waisted jeans are very oddly cut and very unflattering. The put those weird gigantic pockets on them too that cover the bottom half of the ass and are down on the legs. If they would just do a better job of making them both low-waisted and cutting them to be more flattering, I'd be happy.....that and issue citations to fat girls caught wearing them.

[DarkForceRising]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the high-waistedness or low-waistedness of the jeans that I have issues with. It's that most of the low-waisted jeans are very oddly cut and very unflattering. The put those weird gigantic pockets on them too that cover the bottom half of the ass and are down on the legs. If they would just do a better job of making them both low-waisted and cutting them to be more flattering, I'd be happy.....that and issue citations to fat girls caught wearing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, unless a chick has a real bubble butt, a lot of low-waist pants make a chicks ass look boxey- as if their back simply morphs into their legs.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the reading comprehension is unsurprisingly low on OOT. "Most women" dooders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, exactly, which is why I voted for high rise.

Hot women look way better with low rise but most women look awful in them.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the reading comprehension is unsurprisingly low on OOT. "Most women" dooders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, exactly, which is why I voted for high rise.

Hot women look way better with low rise but most women look awful in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women who look awful in low rise look awful anyway though. It isn't a function of the jeans. Women who are hot will look hotter in low rise jeans.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Women who look awful in low rise look awful anyway though. It isn't a function of the jeans. Women who are hot will look hotter in low rise jeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possibly, but irrelevant to the question as posed.

[PokerCat69]

It depends on the girls build. If she is slim then lowcut, heavy then high waisted.

[MrTrik]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the high-waistedness or low-waistedness of the jeans that I have issues with. It's that most of the low-waisted jeans are very oddly cut and very unflattering. The put those weird gigantic pockets on them too that cover the bottom half of the ass and are down on the legs. If they would just do a better job of making them both low-waisted and cutting them to be more flattering, I'd be happy.....that and issue citations to fat girls caught wearing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an ass-man at heart. So yes, I agree completely. Even women in incredible shape with incredible asses look frumpy in low-cuts. High cut and in my early 1980s memories ... camel toe ... LOL ... those are the way to go. J/K on the camel toe thing, that was kinda sad actually.

[Blarg]

Most women are overweight. #1 is the choice.

Women managed to look sexy in jeans before this latest fashion trend, too. I do think the ass crack showing is a little stupid.

If all women were aerobics instructors, I'd be more tempted to choose the low-cut. But I still think there's something inherently dumb looking about having your ass crack showing and your pants looking like they're about to fall off.

I guess after 20 years of even white boys wearing gangsta pants as big as tents all the way down at their knees, it's the femme's turn to look stupid, though.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Most women are overweight. #1 is the choice.

Women managed to look sexy in jeans before this latest fashion trend, too. I do think the ass crack showing is a little stupid.

If all women were aerobics instructors, I'd be more tempted to choose the low-cut. But I still think there's something inherently dumb looking about having your ass crack showing and your pants looking like they're about to fall off.

I guess after 20 years of even white boys wearing gangsta pants as big as tents all the way down at their knees, it's the femme's turn to look stupid, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. You can always look away from the big ones, which you would regardless of pant size. But it is much better to look at the hot ones with low cut.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Rick, for future reference, you're talking the difference between high and low rise pants. And pants that sit on the natural waist (i.e. slightly below the belly button) are high rise pants.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I should have worded it: "the natural waist" or "thin part of the waist". I think I would have gotton more votes for the higher waist.

~ Rick

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Rick, for future reference, you're talking the difference between high and low rise pants. And pants that sit on the natural waist (i.e. slightly below the belly button) are high rise pants.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I should have worded it: "the natural waist" or "thin part of the waist". I think I would have gotton more votes for the higher waist.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I understood it and voted...It was fairly obvious what you meant...

Anyway, both these are cool, but where is the "big boops and a half-shirt" option?

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Women who look awful in low rise look awful anyway though. It isn't a function of the jeans. Women who are hot will look hotter in low rise jeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possibly, but irrelevant to the question as posed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess after 20 years of even white boys wearing gangsta pants as big as tents all the way down at their knees, it's the femme's turn to look stupid, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real big baggy long "shorts" look stupid but I do like the fact that most shorts for men are cut a lot looser than shorts from my youth. During college I had one pair of jeans cut off so short I could have been arrested.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[Anyway, both these are cool, but where is the "big boops and a half-shirt" option?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a boop?. Any relation to "donk" (which I'm just beginning to understand).

~ Rick

[wacki]

Belly button is a bit high. I don't even wear my pants that high. I honestly don't care about the rise either. It's just there are a lot of women that squeeze themselves in clothes that they shouldn't be wearing. Maybe in 10 years genetic therapy will change that but right now a lot of women make themselves look a lot worse then they are.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Women who are hot will look hotter in low rise jeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are young you may have never seen a woman with an incredible heart shaped rear end and thin waist wearing a great pair of skin tight designer jeans with the waist cut for the narrow part. That same woman would look good in low cut jeans but not as good.

That said, low cut may work better for the hipless types.

~ Rick

[wacki]

http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~garret/stuff/pics/2002-2003/JEANS.JPG

couldn't resist

[thatpfunk]

that was so unnecessary wacki!

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make sense. You can always look away from the big ones, which you would regardless of pant size. But it is much better to look at the hot ones with low cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hot ones are hot regardless, and I'm looking no matter what they wear. You don't have to pay do much convincing to get me to look at a hot girl. Fat ones just look WAY worse, and you can't avoid looking at them because they're as common as oxygen.

[jakethebake]

i hate you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[gorie]

[ QUOTE ]
Hot women look way better with low rise but most women look awful in them.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think mid-rise probably looks best on most(?), but that wasnt' an option.

however i prefer low rise on most girls that aren't me. so i voted for low.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Women who are hot will look hotter in low rise jeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are young you may have never seen a woman with an incredible heart shaped rear end and thin waist wearing a great pair of skin tight designer jeans with the waist cut for the narrow part. That same woman would look good in low cut jeans but not as good.

That said, low cut may work better for the hipless types.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the curvy ones don't need low cut to look good, but it makes the hipless ones look a lot sexier.

[Blarg]

Amazing though. She makes the car look small.

[gorie]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~garret/stuff/pics/2002-2003/JEANS.JPG

couldn't resist

[/ QUOTE ]
quick , oompa loompas, to the juicing room.

[Alobar]

who gives a [censored] what looks better on most women. I could care less if some fat girls ass looks better in high rise over low rise, cuz im not looking at it anyway.

Everybody knows, that the only women that matter are hot women, and hot women look better in low rise. The End