Thursday, August 23, 2007

What a Difference a State Makes

BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT

Among the items on the agenda at last night's meeting of the Brattleboro Selectboard was a vote to permanently ban public nudity in the famously tolerant Vermont town. [...] The proposed ordinance--which defines nudity as "the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion of the areola"--was voted down 3-2. [...] Brattleboro's nudists will remain citation free.

  The Smoking Gun

In the words of [Brattleboro] Town Manager Jerry Remillard, if you're naked in public, and you're minding your business, you're legal.

  Boston.com

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs would be illegal under a proposed amendment to Atlanta's indecency laws. The amendment, sponsored by city councilman C.T. Martin, states that sagging pants are an "epidemic" that is becoming a "major concern" around the country.

[...]

The proposed ordinance states that "the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments" would be unlawful in a public place.

  Yahoo

We'll be waiting to see how that turns out. An "epidemic" that's becoming a "major concern" around the country. Because Atlanta has its finger on the social and moral pulse of the nation.

Indecent exposure of undergarments, indeed.

Councilman Martin ought to take a moment to think about this. If people want to dress in a manner that makes them look like fools and inhibits their freedom of movement, he should recognize the positive aspects. 1) You know immediately that you're dealing with someone whose sensibility is in question, and 2) if they happen to be into criminal activities, they can't run as fast as you while trying to hold up their pants, and they have only one hand free to attack with.

One of the funniest things I ever saw was a young man trying to pick himself up off the ground after falling off his skateboard wearing pants with the crotch hanging below his knees.

I'm not particularly concerned about what people wear, but I have to say that that is one fashion statement I thought wouldn't last, because how can it not be as uncomfortable as it is impractical? But it's lasted longer than any other "fad" I've seen. The first time I saw the baggy pants fashion was when I was living in Seattle about 15 years ago. I remember feeling sorry for the young man I saw, because I thought his family was too poor to buy him pants that fit and he was having to wear his father's clothes. (Yes, it's been over 15 years since I had any clue about what was fashionable or not.)

And don't even get me started on the fashion policing going on at Landscape Services back at the University of Missouri ten years ago. For the love of Pete, why do grown people think they need to make rules about how other grown people should dress themselves?


....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.


Oh wait... I have more. You know. You know there is an epidemic of plumber's crack in Atlanta that needs to be addressed.


Ooops wait again... I guess I wasn't thinking about spike heels when I implied that droopy drawers might be the longest running fashion that is both uncomfortable and impractical. Like droopy drawers, spikes make running difficult, but getting back up after a fall isn't as tricky. And both hands are still free. So I guess my vote is still droopy drawers for the most ridiculous long-running fashion. (Neckties can enter the running, but they'll stay in third place, and mostly they're just pointless. And I'm limiting this to western fashion, or we'd lose hands down. Or hands holding up our pants.)


No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!