Pants: What's the point anymore?
Here is a fashion trend I absolutely friggin despise. Right around 1993, some guy, probably down in California, noticed that if he sagged his pants down below his waistline, then they would look baggier, and he would look, by extension, a hell of a lot cooler. Through the 1990s, this evolved into the look where a guy would wear a shirt short enough that you could see about three-to-four inches of boxer. This was the new epitomy of cool. The whole idea is a little moronic, since the point of wearing pants is to shield one's ass and undergarments from the elements, but whatever. It was tolerable.
Today, the sagging pants are out of control. I see this number all around downtown Minnie:
What the hell is that? These guys wear their pants so low that (1) the underwear would be fully visible to anyone walking by and (2) they have use babysteps when walking because the waistline of the pants are down around their knees and constricting stride. There is a customary international norm accepted by all nations that the beltline on a pair of pants does not fall below one's junk. This is a flagrant violation.
Here's the deal. On the human body, there are two well-defined zones for clothing. Covering the torso and abdomen is the "Shirt Zone." Immediately below the Shirt Zone, one finds the "Pants Zone," an area that includes the legs, hips and groin. Some overlap is allowed, but clearly the Pants Zone may not extend past the belly button and the Shirt Zone may not fall below the bottom of a correctly-placed zipper.
In competition with one another over saggity coolness, some individuals are now riding their pants so low that showing a little boxer gives way to showing all of it. Not cool. As a result of this improperly small Pants Zone, the Shirt Zone is grossly extended to sufficiently cover one's ass. Here's my problem with this. If the primary purpose of pants is to cover your ass and you're wearing your pants far too low to even provide any remote shield that area, and as a result, you have to wear an even longer shirt, then what is the point of even continuing to wear pants? All they do now is make you look semi-handicapped when you walk. And another thing. How on earth do these guys keep the waistline of their pants right around mid-thigh? I'm dumbfounded. Do they wear special suspenders or something? A belt clearly couldn't hold those things up. It's amazing enough that they don't trip over their own friggin jeans...
Anyway, the point that I'm making here is that the integrity of the Shirt Zone and Pants Zone are being violated and their borders must be protected. The Shit/Pants Zone rule is one from which no derogation can be allowed. As soon as House of Pain here realizes that pants are inhibiting his mosey, he's liable to lose them. And then, we've reached the point of no return:
Men in dresses.
Do your part. Pull up your gawd damn pants.
Today, the sagging pants are out of control. I see this number all around downtown Minnie:
What the hell is that? These guys wear their pants so low that (1) the underwear would be fully visible to anyone walking by and (2) they have use babysteps when walking because the waistline of the pants are down around their knees and constricting stride. There is a customary international norm accepted by all nations that the beltline on a pair of pants does not fall below one's junk. This is a flagrant violation.
Here's the deal. On the human body, there are two well-defined zones for clothing. Covering the torso and abdomen is the "Shirt Zone." Immediately below the Shirt Zone, one finds the "Pants Zone," an area that includes the legs, hips and groin. Some overlap is allowed, but clearly the Pants Zone may not extend past the belly button and the Shirt Zone may not fall below the bottom of a correctly-placed zipper.
In competition with one another over saggity coolness, some individuals are now riding their pants so low that showing a little boxer gives way to showing all of it. Not cool. As a result of this improperly small Pants Zone, the Shirt Zone is grossly extended to sufficiently cover one's ass. Here's my problem with this. If the primary purpose of pants is to cover your ass and you're wearing your pants far too low to even provide any remote shield that area, and as a result, you have to wear an even longer shirt, then what is the point of even continuing to wear pants? All they do now is make you look semi-handicapped when you walk. And another thing. How on earth do these guys keep the waistline of their pants right around mid-thigh? I'm dumbfounded. Do they wear special suspenders or something? A belt clearly couldn't hold those things up. It's amazing enough that they don't trip over their own friggin jeans...
Anyway, the point that I'm making here is that the integrity of the Shirt Zone and Pants Zone are being violated and their borders must be protected. The Shit/Pants Zone rule is one from which no derogation can be allowed. As soon as House of Pain here realizes that pants are inhibiting his mosey, he's liable to lose them. And then, we've reached the point of no return:
Men in dresses.
Do your part. Pull up your gawd damn pants.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 7/11/2005 10:07:00 AM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
11 Comments:
Apologist.
The style goes beyond race, Agit. I see almost as many white guys doing this number as black. I'll make fun of this guy for sagging his pants down to his knees and make fun of the hippy still wearing the November 2 shirt. Idiotic fashion is idiotic fashion, plain and simple
Thank you for acknowledging the white guy rap ref, WIHS.
Agit: come on, you have to admit the pure lunacy of the look.
I'm serious about the suspenders thing. I have no idea how they stay up just above the knee.
G-spenders maybe? Dunno.
there is worse: italian GIRLS doing this, with thongs and protruding bellies..freaky. cool blog,nice read. will browse around, if I may
Browse away.
See, when pants are worn that low, the pajama shirt is almost a bit of a courtesy, though it should never come to that in the first place.
Has anyone else heard the sociolgy or anthropology argument on the baggy pants?
Two years ago I was at a criminal justice conference in the Spoke when a PHD from So. Cal was asked about baggy pants as a gang symbol. And he simply laughed. He said that the baggy pants thing started in the California prison system as a way to identify "men" from "women". He said he founc the trend absolutely laughable because in jail baggy pants means your someone's bitch.
But either way it's a disgusting trend that I saw too much of in Spokanistan and that I see too much of in DC.
SIX ONE TWO, BIOTCH!
First off, I was never down with the 509. And thankfully thanks to a new number am back at home in the 406.
How I feel about 202, I haven't decided yet.
I am reading this article second time today, you have to be more careful with content leakers. If I will fount it again I will send you a link
He then helped her into the master bedroom and let her flopface down on the bed. I told him I would be hissex slave and that I would do whatever he wanted, whenever hewanted and wherever he wanted.
xnxx femdom stories
adult book sex stories
stories of beastiality
bare spanking stories
erotic sex stories with pictures
He then helped her into the master bedroom and let her flopface down on the bed. I told him I would be hissex slave and that I would do whatever he wanted, whenever hewanted and wherever he wanted.
Post a Comment
<< Home