And now there is. And I’d hazard to guess that there are “indecent exposure” laws on the books in many states already… maybe many laws and on the books for many, many years.
So, now in Mansfield, Louisiana there’s a brand new law against indecent exposure… a law against sagging. Now, you know, I’m thinking that there’s going to be a bunch of hooey about the invasion of privacy or personal expression… you know freedom of dress as a form of speech. Apparently, there’ll be a pretty stiff fine for, well… “Anyone caught wearing sagging pants who exposes his or her underwear will be subject to a fine of up to $150 plus court costs, or face up to 15 days in jail.”
So, there you have it. An arbitrary law… that’s also ambiguous. Perhaps this targets men, or rather, younger males. So anyone who exposes his or her underwear will be fined. His or her… underwear. Now, isn’t that interesting —with men and women increasingly revealing more and more of their undergarments, this’ll be a pretty tough law to enforce. Well, that, or the city will rake in the revenue from violators who defy the law. And given what’s being worn every day, they’re going to need reams of paper for writing out citations. Now, how do you suppose they’ll handle women’s clothing? How about swimsuits? How about the inside out fashion trend? You know… women’s lingerie on the outside. O, c’mon, you know what I mean. Lace clothes hanging out of low tops and pulled tight over the low pants. And the trend here in the pacnorthwest and elsewhere is to wear the low pants so that the tag from a type of undergarment purchased from a Secret store is hanging out of the back of the low pants. I see it so often that I wonder… do the fathers of these girls not tell them what all that says? Do the mothers turn a blind eye to the clothing they wear?
Why is it that indecent exposure is so common and so acceptable. Will the law in Mansfield apply to, say, commonly worn beach attire? Is a bikini not simply colourful underwear? And will underwear include all forms? It really could get out of hand… but, I suppose not more out of hand than the current trends that seem to be commonly accepted.
Ironically, I was just corresponding with a woman this evening about this very topic: modest clothing. It was in relation to the sale of what was termed “modest clothing,” and I was commenting that many of the images I had previewed were, in fact, not “modest” at all. They were designed to cover much of the body (and that was remarkable), but they were still skintight and very provocative. So… modesty isn’t simply a matter of not showing the undergarment or of covering the skin, but it’s something more: it is the wearing of apparel to cover and to not be suggestive or enticing about what’s underneath and the manner in which the clothing is worn has a great deal to do with whether or not a woman is modestly dressed. Now, I’ve spoken and written on this topic many times over the years and have sought to encourage women to take a good look at what they are or aren’t wearing — and why. I think I’ll share a bit more tomorrow on modesty and, this latest topic, indecent exposure.
