Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Fashion Police’ Category

_38040325_baggytrousers.jpg   So the mayor of Delcambre in Louisiana is about to sign a law making it a criminal offence to wear baggy trousers which expose the wearers undergarments. When I first heard about that, I thought it had to be some sort of a joke – criminalising people because of a fashion choice. In the Land of the Free.

Seemingly, the rationale for the ban is that some people find it offensive for others to have their underwear on display in public. And there may be some support for the ban among Delcambre residents, as a recent online poll revealed that a majority of respondents were in favour of the ban — though it may be the case that any potential trouser-criminals were too busy enjoying life to take any notice the poll. I can understand that some people are not too keen on the sight of other people underwear being on display but I can’t see how that ‘dislike’ can be stretched to a situation where one group’s disapproval of a fashion preference is enough to criminalize another group of people.

There seems to be a distinct trend for this form social interference in recent years: one group of people take a dislike to a particular activity and then seek ways justifying sanctions aimed at eliminating the targeted behaviour. The number one tactic (which has recently overtaken the ‘it’s-for-your own-good’ approach) is to bleat on about how detrimental someone’s lifestyle choices are to the controlling group. In the case of baggy trousers, the law is ‘justified’ because it is supposedly offensive to the eye and moral sensibilities of onlookers (the ‘because something can be perceived by one of my senses, I have the right to outlaw your behaviour and impose my will on you’ phenomenon). Live and let live doesn’t come into it.

If the Fashion Police hit the UK shores, I’m going to jump on the bandwagon and lobby against the various fashion disasters that insult my eye on a daily basis.  Middle-aged men in over-tight jeans will be the first on my hit-list. I know there’s not that many of them out there and I that don’t have to look — and that I invaribly avert my gaze from their offensive ancient trouser-packets – but that’s not the point. They’re out there and they have to be stopped – six months in the slammer may well put a stop to their tight-slacks shenanigans.

nose-hair.jpg   Nose hair, too. Not strictly fashion-related but highly offensive to my sensibilities and there’s no excuse for it, as every man of a certain age has surely been presented with at least one nose/ear hair trimmer device during each and every festive season. I know it is my present of choice for every male acquaintance over the age of thirty.

I want cropped trousers banned too, not only because they only look good on an infinitesimal percentage of the world’s population but because some moral deviants insist on wearing them with socks (dirty beggars) and I’m offended by the sight of other people’s socks (socks should be private, socks pollute the air, socks howl at the moon…).

purdey.jpg   I can see how this Banning Everything can get to be addictive. I’m becoming quite power-crazed just pondering on what I could ban next. I think I’ll make a start on hairstyles that don’t meet with my approval. Yesterday, for instance, I had to put up with standing in a supermarket queue behind a little old lady who was sporting a hideously inappropriate Pageboy haircut, no doubt a leftover from her heyday in the1960’s.

This latter-day Purdey had also omitted to fasten the top two buttons of her blouse, thus exposing me to the sight of her underwear (a thermal vest, if I’m not mistaken). I could also detect a slight whiff of lavender fragrance emulating from her. I detest lavender, yet the Jezebel had the nerve to inflict it on me – it near-enough drowned-out my own delightful Gaultier scent. That woman’s days are numbered in more ways than she can imagine.
 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »