LeaP
10-09-2013, 10:11 AM
People often refer to changes from hormones becoming more obvious over time, often to the point of becoming impossible for others to overlook. As I seem to be blooming into some of those, I thought I would describe what's happening from a shape and clothing standpoint to give some specific substance to the comment.
In the past, I caught criticism, and sometimes good-natured ridicule, from my wife and daughter on the fit of women's jeans. They did not fit quite right in the hips or in the rear. The rise looked wrong. The cut looked wrong. They sagged and bagged where should not, and stretched and pinched where they should not. This was despite the fact that I am wider in the hips than most males. I've compensated for this throughout my life by having to wear a size or two up, often tailoring in the waist. You would think women's jeans would have looked and fit fine, but they did not. Thy result was usually a combination of muffin top, sausage stuffing and sagging, all in one gloriously unattractive package. (What was I thinking? ... that's another topic ...)
So it was a bit of a surprise when I noticed the shift to women's jeans fitting better than men's. The criticism of the fit had actually stopped a couple of months ago, though that didn't occur to me until I noticed the change in fit myself. The corollary, however, is that men's pants look increasingly awkward. They are starting to yield the sort of look that you see some butch lesbians projecting. That is, when they wear men's pants, their lower bodies look off-shaped and disproportionate.
As I have lost weight and as the distribution of fat and my body has shifted, I have a more defined and higher waistline. I have never had much of a middle anyway, even when quite heavy, but the loss of what I did have has effectively resulted in the narrowest part of my waist now being above my navel instead of just above the hips. The result is the waistband of men's pants starting to border on untailorable and falling in the wrong place besides.
The fat shift has been to my thighs and hips. The result is an effective change in my inseam. I do not have long legs. My inseam has been 30 inches for as long as I can remember. Yet that is now too short. The change in my upper legs now pulls men's pants in such a way that they are pulled up and outward.
Put it together and you get something that really doesn't look very good. Put it into women's pants and two things happen: the fit is quite good (still don't have enough gear in the rear, though ...) and the impact is quite feminine. It's noticeable either way. I'm not saying that it cannot be disguised, but if you want to wear properly fitted clothing, it starts to become unavoidable at some point.
There is also a shift in the fit of men's shirts. Polos and tees were the first and most obvious. At this point, even when quite large and loose, breast growth unconstrained by something like a compression undergarment results in a lot of stares. But it turns out that looser polos and tees, because of the change in my shape – particularly loss of upper body bulk – now look incredibly sloppy. They also hang wrong, even with a compression undergarment. They drape forward and outward. The result is something akin to to a maternity top look. A better fitted top simply results in breasts being more noticeable.
Both because of cut and because they typically use more structured fabric, dress shirts have been less of an issue for drabwear at work. I wore a Brooks Brothers traditional fit for decades. This is quite loose, but looks proper on a reasonably beefy man's body. As I lost more and more weight and upper body bulk, these began to look comically too large. I finally wound up in a slim fit, which worked well … until a couple of months ago.
The changes are still on the subtle side but are becoming increasingly apparent. As you would expect, the width of the shoulders is still fine. The skeletal structure, after all, does not change. But there is now too much fabric in the upper body of the shirt even with a slim fit cut. Despite that, the cut across the chest is no longer right. I'm developing a female-typical pull across the chest that is starting to pull at the buttons. The lower body of the shirt is simply too large. At this point all of this does not result in something overtly feminine. Rather, it takes an expensive dress shirt from looking right to looking like complete crap. The properly fitted solution would be a woman's cut with darted relief for the breast, tailored and shaped lower shirt body, and a slightly wider shoulder cut. That, however, would be unmistakable. Either way, the changes are unavoidable and, with time, will be regarded more female than male-typical. I suppose my resulting look in drab for most is simply an unattractive body at worst, perhaps a soft and somewhat femmy body at best.
Changes to-date:
Pants – from men's 42 to men's 34. Women's 18 to misses' 12. Trending toward 32 and 10, respectively.
Inseam – 30 to 31 (effective, anyway)
Hips – 44 to 41.
Shift in narrowest point of waist – upwards approximately 2.5 inches.
Neck – 18 to 15.
Chest – 46 to 38.
Cup – none to B. Eventually ... no clue, but I doubt much more.
Weight – 280 at largest to 175. Would like to hit 160 but seem to be stuck.
Delts, traps, and triceps are MUCH reduced. Very little lat spread any longer. Interestingly, I've retained much of my bicep and forearm size (not that the latter was much anyway). Neck less muscular and has lost much of slope to shoulders. Calves are more defined, but thighs are mushier, if anything.
Your mileage will definitely vary, certainly in the details. But make no mistake, changes absolutely become noticeable for most.
I would be interested in reading what others have experienced by way of unavoidably noticeable change. One intent is, again, to be specific about what this means. Another is to dissuade those who seek hormones yet avoid change. A scenario I can't speak to, for example, is change without significant weight loss (regardless of weight). Maybe someone can chime in from that perspective.
In the past, I caught criticism, and sometimes good-natured ridicule, from my wife and daughter on the fit of women's jeans. They did not fit quite right in the hips or in the rear. The rise looked wrong. The cut looked wrong. They sagged and bagged where should not, and stretched and pinched where they should not. This was despite the fact that I am wider in the hips than most males. I've compensated for this throughout my life by having to wear a size or two up, often tailoring in the waist. You would think women's jeans would have looked and fit fine, but they did not. Thy result was usually a combination of muffin top, sausage stuffing and sagging, all in one gloriously unattractive package. (What was I thinking? ... that's another topic ...)
So it was a bit of a surprise when I noticed the shift to women's jeans fitting better than men's. The criticism of the fit had actually stopped a couple of months ago, though that didn't occur to me until I noticed the change in fit myself. The corollary, however, is that men's pants look increasingly awkward. They are starting to yield the sort of look that you see some butch lesbians projecting. That is, when they wear men's pants, their lower bodies look off-shaped and disproportionate.
As I have lost weight and as the distribution of fat and my body has shifted, I have a more defined and higher waistline. I have never had much of a middle anyway, even when quite heavy, but the loss of what I did have has effectively resulted in the narrowest part of my waist now being above my navel instead of just above the hips. The result is the waistband of men's pants starting to border on untailorable and falling in the wrong place besides.
The fat shift has been to my thighs and hips. The result is an effective change in my inseam. I do not have long legs. My inseam has been 30 inches for as long as I can remember. Yet that is now too short. The change in my upper legs now pulls men's pants in such a way that they are pulled up and outward.
Put it together and you get something that really doesn't look very good. Put it into women's pants and two things happen: the fit is quite good (still don't have enough gear in the rear, though ...) and the impact is quite feminine. It's noticeable either way. I'm not saying that it cannot be disguised, but if you want to wear properly fitted clothing, it starts to become unavoidable at some point.
There is also a shift in the fit of men's shirts. Polos and tees were the first and most obvious. At this point, even when quite large and loose, breast growth unconstrained by something like a compression undergarment results in a lot of stares. But it turns out that looser polos and tees, because of the change in my shape – particularly loss of upper body bulk – now look incredibly sloppy. They also hang wrong, even with a compression undergarment. They drape forward and outward. The result is something akin to to a maternity top look. A better fitted top simply results in breasts being more noticeable.
Both because of cut and because they typically use more structured fabric, dress shirts have been less of an issue for drabwear at work. I wore a Brooks Brothers traditional fit for decades. This is quite loose, but looks proper on a reasonably beefy man's body. As I lost more and more weight and upper body bulk, these began to look comically too large. I finally wound up in a slim fit, which worked well … until a couple of months ago.
The changes are still on the subtle side but are becoming increasingly apparent. As you would expect, the width of the shoulders is still fine. The skeletal structure, after all, does not change. But there is now too much fabric in the upper body of the shirt even with a slim fit cut. Despite that, the cut across the chest is no longer right. I'm developing a female-typical pull across the chest that is starting to pull at the buttons. The lower body of the shirt is simply too large. At this point all of this does not result in something overtly feminine. Rather, it takes an expensive dress shirt from looking right to looking like complete crap. The properly fitted solution would be a woman's cut with darted relief for the breast, tailored and shaped lower shirt body, and a slightly wider shoulder cut. That, however, would be unmistakable. Either way, the changes are unavoidable and, with time, will be regarded more female than male-typical. I suppose my resulting look in drab for most is simply an unattractive body at worst, perhaps a soft and somewhat femmy body at best.
Changes to-date:
Pants – from men's 42 to men's 34. Women's 18 to misses' 12. Trending toward 32 and 10, respectively.
Inseam – 30 to 31 (effective, anyway)
Hips – 44 to 41.
Shift in narrowest point of waist – upwards approximately 2.5 inches.
Neck – 18 to 15.
Chest – 46 to 38.
Cup – none to B. Eventually ... no clue, but I doubt much more.
Weight – 280 at largest to 175. Would like to hit 160 but seem to be stuck.
Delts, traps, and triceps are MUCH reduced. Very little lat spread any longer. Interestingly, I've retained much of my bicep and forearm size (not that the latter was much anyway). Neck less muscular and has lost much of slope to shoulders. Calves are more defined, but thighs are mushier, if anything.
Your mileage will definitely vary, certainly in the details. But make no mistake, changes absolutely become noticeable for most.
I would be interested in reading what others have experienced by way of unavoidably noticeable change. One intent is, again, to be specific about what this means. Another is to dissuade those who seek hormones yet avoid change. A scenario I can't speak to, for example, is change without significant weight loss (regardless of weight). Maybe someone can chime in from that perspective.