Overhyped on underpants
Published:Tuesday | February 23, 2010 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
A FEW days ago, some guys who were just a couple of houses away from where I live here in Kingston were arrested for 'indecent exposure'. Their common attire of exposing their underpants was the reason. Now, while I personally don't like this common fashion, I think that this stupid act of the authorities is at the core of what is wrong with our society.
Why is it that we should have a problem with how anybody decides how to express himself through his attire? What the authorities are doing is trampling on the rights of people who are expressing themselves through their outfits. What they wear is their business. They certainly are not forcing anybody to dress like them, so why the fuss?
What's so indecent?
Also, I fail to see how the charge of indecent exposure can be applied to these people. Most of them are covered from head to foot anyway. Their underpants may be exposed, but not their bodies! We all know what underpants look like anyway, so what's so indecent about seeing them?
This new effort to 'clean up our morals' rings very much like ultra-church conservatism, and although I myself may not be targeted now, I am very worried. Now that this taliban-type effort is under way, where will it end? Will women who wear their skirts too short be soon arrested? What about men who wear earrings or tight pants? What about women who wear near transparent outfits? Men who braid their hair? Will they soon be arrested too?
A deafening silence
Talking about our women, I wonder if the authorities will ever clamp down on their short or transparent outfits? In our homophobic society, it seems unlikely. Is it that exposed men should be arrested but exposed women should be encouraged?
There was a time when inter-racial marriage, Rastafarians attending schools or offices and female drivers, among others, were all considered indecent. Why are these people so silent now?
Is it that as these people are no longer 'indecent' they don't mind seeing poor young males fromour ghettos arrested for this foolishness?
I am, etc.,
Michael A. Dingwall