My very fashionable daughter often jokes about how certain particular individuals should be arrested by the fashion police (and some punished severely) for combining stripes and plaids, or wearing last year’s ultra-hot style that is this year’s fashion faux pas.  We laugh.  But this is not always a joke or very funny.

In the 1960s, grown ups scoffed at the attire of youth, and signs went up at lunch counters across the country: No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.  Today, this sounds almost quaint compared with the movement to criminalize undesirable modes of dress, as low-pants legislation is spreading across the country, per Lowering the Belt Bar.

Low-pants has been a curiosity to me, since I fail to understand how they stay up on active young men.  As a style, I find it ridiculous looking. Even worse than people who wear their baseball caps askew, unless they are over 30, this pretend-I’m-in-prison look just makes me think of how silly young men can be in their effort to be cool and cutting edge.   When I was a kid, having one’s underwear showing was a source of great embarrassment (“I see London, I see France…”).  Today, it is a sign of machismo.  I don’t want to see any boys underwear.  I’m not offended by it, but I have no desire to gaze upon it either. 

These legislative initiatives, tackling the difficult issues of the day, have decided that the low-pants problem is worth, at its most extreme, a 6 month jail sentence.  I would expect jail to be limited to the most hardened low-pants recidivists, though the irony of taking some kid who has adopted the prison-pants-look and putting him in prison to teach him to stop isn’t easy to ignore. 

What is the compelling social need to lock away yet more people? 

Council member Louis Marshall told reporters that “[w]e unanimously passed the legislation because we have had so many complaints from citizens who don’t want to see young men with pants hanging so low, showing their underwear and, in some cases, their posterior.” 

In Shreveport, council member Calvin Lester agreed, adding three other adjectives to the list: “unsightly, unseemly and disrespectful.” 

I’m shocked that no one said it offended the delicate sensibilities of fine young southern womanhood.  There are many things in life that fail to meet with the satisfaction of others.  I cannot argue that the low pants situation is one that meets my expectations.  It’s a damn stupid look, and the kids who dress that way let the rest of the world know that they are, well, dumb kids.  But that’s not a crime and shouldn’t be a crime.  What is fundamentally wrong here is that local legislatures believe that such trivial matters, not to mention matters that impact the right to free expression if we need to go that far, are worthy of their time and effort.

This is fashion.  It will change.  It always does.  And the offensive sight of tidy whities, or on the slip side, thongs as revealed by Scarlett in the Nanny Diaries movie commercials broadcast on the small screen even in Louisiana, should serve as a reminder that this is not a flattering look for anyone.  And if we ignore it, it will eventually go the way of bell-bottoms and Nehru jackets. 

To those legislators who agree with me that low-pants look foolish, let me say this:  There are serious problems afflicting every community across America.  Stop looking at kids butts and get to work on some of them.  And stop inventing crimes to rid yourself of every disagreeable taste.  Sure, these kids are immature, but they’re kids.  You legislators have no excuse. Grow up.