The Other Cheek

I've always had a sort of personality disorder that flares up when I consider certain issues. One part of me is hard line conservative, seeing things in black&white and thinking people should just act RIGHT! (And of course, "right" is always clear and obvious.) But another part of me is aware that societal "rules" are arbitrary and often illogical; we hold to them merely for stability, which should not always be the highest object of social action. This second part of me prefers to defend people's right to self-expression and self-determination. It is adept at observing and thinking about things rather than dismissing them out of hand.

This internal polarity has often caused me immense inner conflict. Usually, my first reaction is the conservative, judgmental one, but then what I like to think of as my more reasonable side takes over and I step back to re-examine the matter with a more scientific approach. I try to see the ramifications of the behavior and decide objectively what to think about the issue, attempting to see what the goal is and how effective the behavior is at achieving that goal. Most of time I end up with a sort of compromise, a position that acknowledges that while things don't necessarily have to be the black&white way, completely destroying established behavioral rules of a society is seldom desirable either. A good balance and some common sense is often the path I prefer.

Today as I stood at my crossing-guard intersection, I noted for the dozenth time that I see more male underwear in ten minutes of work than one can find in an Undergear catalog. As I'm sure you know, the fashionable way of wearing jeans among today's high school boys is at least three inches below the waist, and many of them have no compunction about displaying their entire back side. They waddle vulgarly like a baby with a full diaper, and many of them have to hold their waistband to keep their pants from plummeting to their ankles. There was a time when this style was limited to certain groups or subgroups, but it is widely popular among all groups today. (Although the "skinny jean" has made some inroads.)

As soon as I made the observation, my two sides were at war. The conservative portion of my psyche shook its head in disgust, thinking, "How can their parents let them go out of the house that way?" and "Why do they even bother wearing pants at all? It's not like they are covering up anything." Then my rational side kicked in with "Well, of course, it wouldn't really matter if they didn't wear pants. There is nothing innately 'indecent' about the body. It is merely a societal taboo that says it's so. Besides, it's not like these boys are actually displaying their bodies. They are, in fact, covered up. Is there any substantial, inherent difference between a pair of boxer shorts and a pair of swimming trunks, other than a slight level of thickness? It is only the idea that underwear should be worn under other garments that makes their appearance seem inappropriate... and exciting. Today's youth are pushing this boundary and challenging its legitimacy, which is more or less the job of the young, isn't it? Who is it really hurting, anyway? Stop being such an old fogey!"

But as one skinny young man of about fifteen rode past me, both cheeks and a crevice clearly visible in their entirety through his thin, white briefs or boxer briefs, I wasn't sure I wanted to side with my "rational" side. Sometimes, I think the boundary needs to push back.