How Should the Back of Slouchy Trousers Fit?

So. I have these slouchy trousers.

Consensus seems to be that they look great from the front but that the back does not look right.

Too droopy.

So...my question is, how are they *supposed* to look in the back?

I have received a number of helpful suggestions about how to alter if I choose to go that route rather than returning. But before I do that, I want to know, what effect am I really after?

Visuals would be much appreciated!

This post is also published in the youlookfab forum. You can read and reply to it in either place. All replies will appear in both places.

24 Comments

  • cciele replied 7 years ago

    I added some links to the bottom of my post in your previous thread -- not sure if you noticed them since they were a last minute addition :)

    http://youlookfab.com/2012/03/.....tructured/
    http://www.shopbop.com/suekey-.....rg-4165214

  • Gaylene replied 7 years ago

    Perfect examples, cciele, of how slouchy pants ought to fit in the back. The extra fabric in the front and on the thighs gives the slouch, but the back fit still looks perfect.

    I actually think that this look is not an easy one to find off the rack. Unless you are built like a model, I think that to get this look, we'll be making a lot of tailors happy. LOL

  • Janet replied 7 years ago

    Gaylene, I think you're right about it being a difficult fit to find off the rack. Especially if one is petite or short in the rise. I have trouble with *regular* pants giving me droopy butt because my rise is short -- slouchy pants would be that much more difficult!

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    Aha! Thank you, Cathy - that is VERY helpful.

    Those pants go up to the waist. That's going to be a different fit than ones that are lower rise, regardless. But let me do some pinning to see what I can discover.

  • Transcona Shannon replied 7 years ago

    Suz - take my opinion FWIW...my slouchy trousers are saggy in the behind, similar to how my Gap BF jeans fit - the pants sit on my hips and the slouch is what I would call equal in the front and the back. I'm more than ok with this as that was the look I was wanting. Here's the link to the first wearing of mine - unfortunately I don't have a back view but maybe you can get the sense of how much slouch I have. Plus it shows the amount of ankle scrunch with my Marcies.

    http://youlookfab.com/welookfa.....hy-stripes

    I honestly see no issue with the fit of yours in the back. True, slouchy trousers are not figure flattering in the true definition but I think these look sensational on you and have just the right menswear vibe to them.

    In the end however it boils down to what you think about it, how you feel in the trousers and if you will be mentally comfortable wearing them.

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    You are right, Shannon - mine look similar to yours. And these have more of a menswear vibe than the ones that Cathy linked to; those ones come right up to the waist and are more reminiscent of a gaucho pant (to me) except narrowing down to the taper.

    Hmmmm. Well. I am going to iron and pin and see what I think.

    I want to be comfortable in the look if I am going to try it. I don't really get too fussed about the back view, myself, and neither does hubby, but on the other hand I don't want to look like somebody who is just wearing the wrong size pants!

    Thank you all so much!

  • Transcona Shannon replied 7 years ago

    Well if nothing else Suz, we've all thoroughly enjoyed looking at your adorable tushie!!!

  • Jonesy replied 7 years ago

    My understanding is that slouchy = dropped crotch. I'm almost positive this is Angie's take. She had a clarifying thread about this a while back, which defined dropped crotch as the fundamental criterion for slouchy. This helped me to think about pleated, gathered, etc. vs. dropped crotch. So you can actually have a slim-fitting pant or jean with a dropped crotch and call them slouchy (see my example below, first two pics). So there will automatically be some "diaper butt" or sagging from the rear view (see some extreme examples below, in pics 3-4).

    The two pics linked to by Cciele look like pleated pants, but not dropped-crotch pants, so the rear view, with the pants hugging or cupping the outline of the bum, look like the rear view of regular ol' pants. Suz, yours don't look like the crotch is dropped? I'm not exactly sure what is going on with the rear fit...Is the fabric stiff, or bunching up because they are long and sort of bunching up from the shoes up (if that makes sense?)?

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    Ah, I was hoping you would chime in.

    And now I remember this thread and conversation.

    I actually have a pair of "slouchy skinnies." Crotch is a bit dropped, a bit of saggy butt, but very slim all the way otherwise.

    So...these new pants are wool. The fabric actually has a lovely drape. They *do* have *some* crotch drop. It is not extreme, but it is present. More or less, depending on how high I hike them.

    Angie voted yay on these trousers, by the way, both when I tried them on in the store, and subsequently.

    I think that part of the back fit problem *is* exactly what you say, Jonesy....the length is making them bunch from the bottom. But I think they are also supposed to pool a bit at the bottom. And if they do that, then perhaps they just *will* bunch like this. I'm going to do a bit more experimenting when I can get my photographer's cooperation.

  • catgirl replied 7 years ago

    Jonesy, I think you're right, and wasn't the dropped crotch the difference between baggy and slouchy?

  • cciele replied 7 years ago

    Now I'm confused, since the links I posted were from Angie's blog talking about slouchy trousers!

  • Jonesy replied 7 years ago

    Ah, well, maybe I'm mis-remembering the dropped crotch thread from Angie? (I don't have the time to look it up, but maybe someone else will feel compelled to :)

  • krishnidoux replied 7 years ago

    Gosh, Shannon, you look so fab in your slouchy trousers!

    Suz, I think that you could have it altered minimally, but making sure that the tailor wouldn't take in too much fabric. I am afraid it would take away from the slouchiness given it is a low rise.

    I have a pair of black slouchy pants (became a power horse in my wardrobe this season), the waist is elastic and higher. Yet there is a little bit of extra fabric in the lower bum area.

    If you do go to the tailor, bring him/her pictures. Here are some drop waist slouchy pants. As Gaylene mentions, you will see there is more slouch in the front than in the back:

    http://guessbymarciano.guess.c.....4W1199582Y
    http://girlsinfloral.multiply......13#photo=3
    http://www.stylehive.com/bookm.....ers-985255

  • Angie replied 7 years ago

    I feel so strongly about this that I am chiming in about fit with my sore arm!

    And what Jonesy said.

    Cathy and Gaylene, those examples are not slouchy because the crotch point is not dropped. (As "slouch" and "baggy" have become more prominent in fashion, I have refined the definitions and do apologize for the confusion. It is confusing!) Those trousers are just VERY baggy with a fitted crotch point and lots of pleats. Hence the back fit is fitted. When the crotch point drops - the back follows through - causing the fit on Suz's pants. It's 100% in my book.

    Check my comment on Mary's thread WITH visuals of slouchy and baggy, which I hope make sense:

    http://youlookfab.com/welookfa.....in-slouchy

    Once again, I apologize for the confusion, Cathy and Gaylene. I hate being inconsistent.

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    Oh, Angie - thank you for chiming in and please go back to rest again!!

    I am glad you found that link. I am off to study it.

    My one concern is that these may not in fact be quite dropped enough in the front. I am wondering if I should have bought one size up (too late for that now, as we don't have this trouser in Kingston). They *do* drop a bit in front, but it's not an extreme drop, and that is part of what is causing people's confusion, I think. From the front perhaps they look more like "baggy" pants. Well...from the back, too!

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    Um...thank you everyone for tolerating my obsessiveness on this point. Another item to consider, I happen to like the look of both baggy *and* slouchy trousers (assuming they are done well) with a preference for *slightly* slouchy vs. extreme slouch, and a high tolerance for baggy (on the right person in the right outfit).

    If that affects anyone's opinion.

  • replied 7 years ago

    Yes, these are different from the high-waisted, pleated, tight on the bum trousers. IMO it would be a pity to lose the slouchiness in the seat, for comfort reasons. I'm still getting used to the way this type of pant behaves with boots/booties. I want the leg to hang straight down (a la 1980s) but unless you cuff them, they're not going to do that. I'm still not sure I like my own skinny jeans with booties for this reason.

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    I hear you, Claire. And I like your shoe suggestions, though I would need some sort of heel; I'm not going with flats partly because of leg shortening and partly because flats are not comfortable for me anyway. But I am thinking some sort of shootie might be better with these...something that won't catch up the fabric quite as much.

  • Gaylene replied 7 years ago

    Well, it seems to me that the question is really how much extra fabric do you want in the back of your pants and how do you want that fabric distributed. I suspect that the answer is different for different people. It's like a dropped crotch--how far down do you go before you don't like the look on yourself or other people.

    If you like the way your current pants look and feel, Suz, then that is perhaps the best answer to your question. While I might think those pants have too much droop, the girls in the last two pictures that Jonesy posted probably would think your pants don't have enough droop.

    Personally, while I like both baggy and slouchy looks (using Angie's definitions), I guess I prefer them both in moderation. To my eye, the more extreme the bag or slouch, the younger the look. Just my two cents.

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    Yes, I agree, Gaylene - and the more extremely slouchy versions do not appeal to me personally. Which is why I was going for a very moderate slouch. And in front I seem to have achieved that.

    Hmmm. I still plan to do a wee bit of pinning to see how these feel in different ways.

    Thank you, again!

  • shevia replied 7 years ago

    Perhaps unhelpful thought: unless I planned to spend time in front of an audience with my back turned, I just wouldn't worry that much about the slouch from the back. Off to study your other thread.

  • Suz replied 7 years ago

    Chuckling....one reason Gaylene may be especially sticky on this point is that she does *exactly* that!!

    Teaching involves inordinate hours in front of an audience with one's back turned. No wonder she wants her trousers nicely fitted and knows a thing or two about how to achieve that!

    Fortunately, I'm no longer in front of a classroom myself, and spend a lot more time sitting *on* the tush than unintentionally flaunting it!

  • Gaylene replied 7 years ago

    *laughing*

    Well, I've never thought of it as *flaunting* my rear, but you are SO right about my being conscious of the back view. A couple of hundred semi-bored twenty-somethings staring at your rear will do that to a person. And trust me, those are really tough fashion critics who haven't yet learned how to be tactful. I sometimes overhear comments students make about how their profs dress; those youngsters don't pull any punches!

  • krishnidoux replied 7 years ago

    I think that with this particular style, which is more androgyne-menswear-slouch than harem-slouch, the present level of slouch in the front is fine. And in the back too, if you ask me.

You need to be logged in to comment