Thursday, February 10, 2005
To Wear Or Not To Wear
"I see London. I see France. I see Johnny's underpants." We used to sing that song as kids, on the playground, making fun of other kids when their pants fell down or their skirts blew up or something similar. Now you can sing that to a whole different group of people. I don't know about you, but I've been fascinated by the trend of the super-low-rise-baggy-pants guys wear now days. I've marveled at how they can keep them up without suspenders when the waist is hitting them bellow their butts. Baggy pants, big shirts, big coats. This is a style that some people choose to wear. I don't, but I'm not offended by it, either. Is anyone out there? Are you truly offended by someone wearing clothes that are way too big for them? Is this fashion statement infringing on any of your God-given rights, or on any of the rights given to you by the Constitution? I find it hard to believe that anyone can answer 'yes' to these questions.
Someone has, though. So now, while I am still fascinated by the reverse-gravity thing these guys have going on, I am even more fascinated by a bill that was passed in the Virginia House of Delegates, and is now being sent to the state Senate. This bill authorizes the police to give a $50 fine to people wearing their pants so low that you can see their underwear (or lack thereof). Are you kidding me?! Are we really going to start allowing the government to say how we can and cannot wear our clothes? Is this a slippery slope anyone wants to jump onto?
Take, for example, the charging of a fine for driving too fast. Why do we have this? It's because breaking the speed limit can potentially infringe on someone else's rights - like the right to live. So there are laws set forth to keep us from potentially violating someone else's rights as given by the Constitution. I just read through the Bill of Rights, and I did not find that any of them would be violated by someone showing part of their underwear. The people who wear this fashion are usually a lot more covered up than most people on the street. So you get a glimpse of the elastic band of some guy's boxers occasionally. To me, that's less unnerving than seeing a guy in a Speedo at the beach in the summer. But there is no law keeping him from wearing that, is there? I don't think so. Or does a Speedo for a man or a string bikini for a woman fall into the category of "lewd or indecent"? Guess everyone's gonna have to start taking Grant with them to the beach.
Someone has, though. So now, while I am still fascinated by the reverse-gravity thing these guys have going on, I am even more fascinated by a bill that was passed in the Virginia House of Delegates, and is now being sent to the state Senate. This bill authorizes the police to give a $50 fine to people wearing their pants so low that you can see their underwear (or lack thereof). Are you kidding me?! Are we really going to start allowing the government to say how we can and cannot wear our clothes? Is this a slippery slope anyone wants to jump onto?
Take, for example, the charging of a fine for driving too fast. Why do we have this? It's because breaking the speed limit can potentially infringe on someone else's rights - like the right to live. So there are laws set forth to keep us from potentially violating someone else's rights as given by the Constitution. I just read through the Bill of Rights, and I did not find that any of them would be violated by someone showing part of their underwear. The people who wear this fashion are usually a lot more covered up than most people on the street. So you get a glimpse of the elastic band of some guy's boxers occasionally. To me, that's less unnerving than seeing a guy in a Speedo at the beach in the summer. But there is no law keeping him from wearing that, is there? I don't think so. Or does a Speedo for a man or a string bikini for a woman fall into the category of "lewd or indecent"? Guess everyone's gonna have to start taking Grant with them to the beach.
