February 12, 2015
Goddamn, has it ever been a blockbuster year for Lululemon. First, we had that super-hot Christian MILF lady announcing she’s no longer wearing yoga pants because she’s somehow responsible for tempting the wandering eyes of the menfolk. Now, an anti-bro Montana lawmaker named David Moore is introducing a bill that will absurdly expand the state’s “indecent exposure” statute. From the Billings Gazette:
“The proposal would expand indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men’s, and any garment that ‘gives the appearance or simulates’ a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.”
What does that mean? No idea! Like, can I not wear my beloved Chippendales dancer t-shirt because it’s designed to make it look as though I’m wearing nothing but a bow tie above the waist? Would I be cited for wearing pants that show off my ample, sumptuous bulge (anything tighter than sweatpants, tbh)?
The bill’s also not clear on things like leggings or yoga pants. Rep. Moore did say that tight-fitting, flesh-toned pants “could” be considered under the expanded law, and that “yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway.”
He goes on to say that he wouldn’t mind seeing people fined or jailed for violating the law, but can’t speak to the kind of discretion officers would exercise.
The bill is almost, kinda, sorta, not really reasonable when you consider its impetus: Something called the “Bare as you Dare” event, in which a bunch of naked and mostly-naked cyclists rode through downtown Missoula, MT. Fearing a lawsuit over freedom of speech, they begrudgingly issued the permits. Like, ok, I can see why you wouldn’t want THAT parading down main street. It prompted one former professor, Walt Hill, to clutch his pearls and call for the initial drafting of the bill because THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
“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,” Hill said Tuesday in support of the measure. “I believe this bill is written preserving that reputation.”
Right, because there’s nothing degrading about telling women (and men!) that the outlines of their bodies are “indecent.”