Recently a Montana lawmaker proposed legislation to protect the public from a perilous plague.
A scourge to society. A menace to mankind. A curse to the common good.
Yoga pants.
Rep. David Moore, R-Missoula, introduced House Bill 365 to the House Judiciary Committee that would broaden state's indecent exposure laws to include "any device, costume or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates" ones private parts. The bill then listed the biology class names for such parts.
The proposed legislation was a response to a group of naked bicyclists who rode through Moore's city last summer. The Bare as you Dare event was permitted by city officials who feared prohibiting it would be violating free speech.
But soon attention shifted from naked cyclists to clothed yogis. While the bill didn't specify yoga pants, Moore did. And that's when he put the "war" in wardrobe.
"Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway," Moore was quoted by The Associated Press as saying after a hearing on the bill. If passed, tight-fitting beige clothing could also be considered indecent exposure, as could Speedos (hmm, maybe he does have a point there). First-time offenders would be fined no more than $500 or jailed no longer than 6 months. Double that for second offenses. Beyond that, repeat offenders could be fined no more than $5,000 and jailed no more than 5 years.
"Indecent exposure does not include an act of breastfeeding by a mother," according to the bill. Unless, say, she's wearing yoga pants.
Walter Hill, a retired Missoula professor, was quoted as saying in support of the bill, "I want Montana to be known as a decent state where people can live within the security of laws and protect their children and associates from degrading and indecent practices."
Degrading and indecent? Yoga pants? The elastic, stretchy, comfort apparel so many women wear, not for actual yoga, but for running quick errands, lounging around the house and accommodating a post-Valentine's-chocolate-binge bloat?
Is there any garment less sexy or scandalous than yoga pants?
Apparently Moore's colleagues didn't think so. Or they thought he was too big for his britches.
Members of the committee -- the ones who wear the pants in the legislature -- voted unanimously to table the bill.
Namaste.
But it got me thinking what items of clothing should be outlawed, just because. Here were a few things that came to mind:
Bluetooth headsets. Unless you're expecting a call from the president, you don't need to walking around wearing one in public. Even if the president did call, he'd say, "Lose the Bluetooth."
Fanny packs. We're not fans.
Climate-ambiguous clothes: Sleeveless hoodies. short-sleeve sweaters. Fur bikinis. Peep-toe boots. It's either cool or it's hot, and you're neither when you can't decide.
Jorts (jean-shorts) and jeggings (jean-leggings) and any other jeans hybrids waiting to happen.
Pleated pants. Hammer pants. Stirrup pants. Time to give such dated looks a kick in the pants.
Sandals with socks. The footwear was designed to reveal your feet ... your calloused, unmanicured, ew, stinky feet. On second thought, put the socks back on.
Crocs. With exceptions only for medical personnel. And circus clowns.
Baggy pants/exposed underwear. And its sister, tight pants/exposed thongs.
Arby's hats (looking at you, Pharrell).
Shorts-suits (looking at you again, Pharrell).
Backless matador costumes (looking at you, Madonna).
Bathrobes out of the house, let alone as evening wear (looking at you, Kim Kardashian -- although it's refreshing to see you in clothing, period).
Be a smarty pants, email:
jchristman@arkansasonline.com
What's in a Dame is a weekly report from the woman 'hood.
Style on 02/17/2015