Accidentally Showing off my leg hair when seated?

[Brandons]

When stood up straight my pants are a great length. All of them range from no break (barely touching the top of my shoe) to a full break. For about 50 percent of my pants when I have a seat the leg opening rises on my leg significantly (see photo). I usually wear crew socks (shorter then half calf but much longer then ankle). But despite the fact that my socks are fairly long my pants rise above them especially if I cross a leg. I own many different pairs of pants of different fabrics, fits, and types ect. Why does this happen way more on some pants than others, and how can I reduce or eliminate this. Is this normal to happen to this extreme of an extent? Does it have anything to do with fitment?

 

[breakaway01]

the answer is over-the-calf socks. It's really hard to always prevent trouser legs from rising above the lower calf if you cross your legs while seated.

 

[Brandons]

Well thank you for the reply, but I have to admit I was hoping there would be a different solution. I live in a hot climate so I prefer not to wear over the calf.

 

[breakaway01]

In hot climates the alternative would be loafers and no socks (or loafer socks that aren't visible). I know some people don't like the look, but I guess if I had to choose, I'd prefer that look to crew socks.

 

[St1X]

In hot climates the alternative would be loafers and no socks (or loafer socks that aren't visible). I know some people don't like the look, but I guess if I had to choose, I'd prefer that look to crew socks.

This! Classic men's style was born and refined in cold UK. You can't blindly apply the same rules and approaches to a hot climate countries. Look at Italians for an inspiration

 

[zippyh]

Or shave your legs. No leg hair to see. Problem solved!

But seriously embrace the loafer/no socks look or get longer socks.

 

[St1X]

Or shave your legs. No leg hair to see. Problem solved!

But seriously embrace the loafer/no socks look or get longer socks.

Shaving legs is absolutely the worst. One should trim legs instead. But it's not about leg hair in this case, it's about breaking the look with a vertical stripe of skin that peaks in between your socks and the bottom of your pants

 

[Brandons]

The leg hair isn't the actual issue. I don't like the look of no socks very much. So if there is really no way to prevent the rising then I guess I would like to try to get away with a sock that is slightly shorter than over the calf, maybe one that ends more around the middle of my calf. I have seen some extremely thin socks. So thin you can see through them leg hair and all, but I would imagine they get holes in them very easily and don't do a good job of stopping sweat from getting in your shoes.

 

[Andy57]

I've worn OTC socks in all temperatures. It is the only solution to the problem you describe. Indeed, with dress trousers or suits, OTC are the only sort of socks you should be wearing.

 

[DorianGreen]

No excuse for not wearing over the calf socks, the only option a gentleman has. I wear preferably wool socks, also in summer.

 

[Andy57]

No excuse for not wearing over the calf socks, the only option a gentleman has.

I agree entirely.

 

[jeremygo]

You can find nice OTC socks that wear reasonably cool. I've bought quite a few from Sid Mashburn (90% wool, 10% nylon I think) in navy, olive, black, etc. and worn them in hot summer weather with no real issue.

 

[JFWR]

No excuse for not wearing over the calf socks, the only option a gentleman has. I wear preferably wool socks, also in summer.

I'd also agree.

Socks are meant to be worn higher up the leg in order to hide the inevitable show of bare leg under one's trousers. It does look really dumb to show bare leg in a suit, and given as men we are obliged to pull up the pants leg to sit down, it is pretty much inevitable we're going to show off our legs if you don't have long enough socks.

I'd say you need at least 6 inches above the ankle at a minimum.

I call it the baseball rule. My socks should look like I'm Lou Gehrig:

That being said, if you are already wearing bare feet in your loafers or whatever in the summer, then showing bare leg is absolutely in line with that. But honestly? I hate the whole bare feet in loafers look, but then again, I'm not from Miami.

 

[Joffrey]

I used to dislike OTC socks but gravitated toward them for similar reasons as the OP. I actually love them now. I would say buy good quality socks and they should not be uncomfortable (I manage perfectly well wearing them through DC summers). My socks are $20-35 (wool/nylon blend) and are comfortable year round.

 

[pasadena man]

I'd also agree.

Socks are meant to be worn higher up the leg in order to hide the inevitable show of bare leg under one's trousers. It does look really dumb to show bare leg in a suit, and given as men we are obliged to pull up the pants leg to sit down, it is pretty much inevitable we're going to show off our legs if you don't have long enough socks.

I'd say you need at least 6 inches above the ankle at a minimum.

I call it the baseball rule. My socks should look like I'm Lou Gehrig:

That being said, if you are already wearing bare feet in your loafers or whatever in the summer, then showing bare leg is absolutely in line with that. But honestly? I hate the whole bare feet in loafers look, but then again, I'm not from Miami.

Thank you, JFWR, for giving me a new fashion lodestar: "What would Lou Gehrig do (re: hosiery)?"
The picture makes another point though. Prior to the 19th century adoption of trousers, Western gentlemen generally wore breeches with hose, which showed their calves and ankles to potential advantage.

A well turned ankle and shapely, muscular, calf, was a secondary sexual characteristic, and considered comely in men as well as in women. One needs the continuous line of OTC socks to convey that effect today.

So, if one's love life is a bit wanting; maybe, just maybe, your choice of hose has something to do with it.