Baggy pants lovers and others all across the country are lamenting the recently proposed ordinance by Atlanta city councilman C.T. Martin which prohibits “the indecent exposure of his or her undergarments” in public places.

Martin, who has called the wearing of baggy pants in his city “a major concern” and an “epidemic,” is under fire not only from those who favor the voyeuristic style of showing their underwear in public, but also from the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims the new law is a form of racial profiling.

But it appears the ACLU is missing a major point in this controversial issue. Instead of arguing that banning baggy pants is a form of racial profiling, they should be arguing the councilman is suggesting a form of “stupidity profiling,” because this fashion trend has to be the dumbest thing since the beenie-cap propeller.

Certainly it should be illegal for the police to target anyone solely because their IQ level is a few points shy of cement mortar.

Whenever I’m in line behind someone wearing their pants so low that I can clearly see their underwear and derriere, I always make it a point to tap them on the shoulder and say, “Excuse me, do you know that your pants are falling down?”

I express this in a manner of caring for the individual, void of any judgmental characterizations.

This line of questioning is usually met with instant disdain, and one young fellow curtly replied, “It’s the fashion, dude.”

Some are even saying this fashion is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. But no one has explained to me exactly what freedom of speech this represents. The freedom of wanting everyone to see their butts in a pair of cotton Calvin Kleins?

Not too long ago, I saw a teenager in Greenbrier County walking down the street with his jeans half-way down his thighs. I was driving at the time, so I wasn’t able to inform him that his pants were falling down and yelling it from my vehicle would not have been appropriate.

However, I believe he knew that his pants were falling down because he was holding his tightly strapped belt in one hand in order to keep them perfectly at midthigh level. Now, that’s the freedom of stupidity. That guy was walking like he had a tight miniskirt on with broken high heels.

Police should be against banning baggy pants because some defendants are much easier to catch on foot if they have to hold onto their belts with one hand while trying to run away.

But does this fashion sense rise to the level of being illegal? I really doubt it in most cases, and policing what people can wear in public is more than a slippery slope, regardless of how distasteful it is.

In fact, those who wear their pants in this manner are actually performing a very important function in society — the promotion of laughter.

No matter how stressful life gets, if I catch a glimpse of anybody who has to hold onto a belt because their pants are falling down — and on purpose, mind you — there’s no way but to laugh about it. I am instantly in a better mood and you should be too.

I apologize if I have offended any baggy pants wearers in southern West Virginia, and if you intend to track me down with harmful intentions, let me remind you of one thing.

If you were to confront me, I assume you would be wearing baggy pants in order to persuade me into thinking more positively about your freedom of speech. Thus, your backside will only be protected by a thin layer of cotton underwear.

Consequently, my faithful dog Malachai has yet to read the First Amendment to the Constitution and also has very sharp teeth. No butts about it. Carpe Diem, everybody. Have a great week.

— Christian lives in Greenbrier County and does not own a pair of baggy pants. E-mail:

React to this story:


Trending Video