1 of 59

No

Write now Article Tools

Hear the moral outcry: Raise the waistlines! No more unwanted exposure to elastic waistbands!

The outlawing of low-cut pants would, presumably, protect the potentially offended from unwanted exposure to . . . hip bones?

I grew up in a city where women could legally go shirtless. My mother and I often passed a woman in the neighborhood who went out dressed in cut-off jeans and a butterfly painted across her chest. My mother would say, "Isn't she beautiful!"

Breastfeeding mothers needed not worry about arrest for indecent exposure, regardless of any moral objection.

Not everyone shared my mother's view of topless women, of course. But my fellow residents all came to terms with it in their own way. The majority had, after all, voted down attempts by offended folks to outlaw women, but not men, from going topless.

A memorable anecdote from a woman traveling in a country where women had to wear clothing that covered them from head to foot told of her surprise upon seeing a veiled woman breastfeeding her baby with both breast completely exposed.

Everyone has their own moral ideas. Do we really want to pass laws to support one group, but not another, or worse, to support them all? When would it end? If we allow the outlaw of certain styles, the list will only lengthen.

I don't like to see people exposing their bodies for unhealthy reasons. That's one interpretation of the extreme low-cut pants and underwear accessories. However, I also see these styles as a rebellious response to body repression.

I remember a proposal to ban UK men from going shirtless in public. My high school enforced several clothing bans: overalls, handkerchiefs tied over the hair, certain colors. The response of the majority of students was to protest. Kids who had never worn overalls or handkerchiefs began to do so.

Can you guess the reasons for a ban on overalls? How about handkerchiefs? Overalls were deemed dangerous. The straps could come undone and strike someone. The handkerchiefs and colors were an attempt to prevent gang identification. What my school's officials tried to do is no different from what a government would try to do with the general populace. Regardless of their reasons, laws designed to protect certain groups from offense carry too much potential for getting out of hand. Imagine a ban on tie-dye or baseball caps, perhaps just certain teams.

The laws for all would be worse than the offense of some.

Learn more about this author, Sara Mcgrath.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should belt-less pants, showing boxers or a whale tail, be banned??
We want to hear your view. Write now!