A 2½" fabric covered elastic waistband runs full circumference. The same cotton/Lycra stretch fabric then completes the front and rear with only side seams.
If you really can't stand the feeling of a thong, this dance belt offers an option. The rear narrows enough to mostly nestle between the butt cheeks so it doesn't show too much, but doesn't go as deep as a classic thong.
90% cotton/10% Lycra
In my opinion this dance belt should be nicknamed "discomfort". After just a few minutes of wear, the rear migrates deeper. Too much material between the legs inhibits movement and feels like you are wearing a diaper or experiencing a really bad wedgie. The smooth transition from waistband to rear is too wide, causing seam friction against your gluteus muscles. Excessive front stretch leads to slippage, discomfort, and showing of anatomical detail.
Inadequate back support for partnered lifts.
It's instructive to compare the amount of material between the legs of a Capezio 5933 and an MStevens 1007 which has the narrowest thong.
Dan from Milton Keynes, England (@balletchap on Twitter) was a serious dance student as a teenager, but packed it in at 18. Now starting again, but on the "wrong side of 30", he found the only dance belt in stock that would fit his 6'-2" 100+kg frame was the Capezio "Comfort". He writes:
I tried this dancebelt having come back to ballet after a long break because it looked slightly less drastic than other belts I could see online.
First impressions were good; it seemed to hold me in reasonably comfortably without chopping me in half.
I have been wearing it for about ½ a term now (6 weeks or so) and although it’s not bad, there are a few of things that bother me. It has a wide elastic waistband, which is within the belt, not external like some other belts. This (on me) tends to roll over at the top, making it quite uncomfortable. You have to be really careful to prevent this from happening when you put it on. This may be exacerbated by the fact I am plumper than the average danseur!
All in all, not bad, but could be better. I score it 6 out of 10.