2006-10-25

In which I try to contain myself, quite literally�

I�m really annoyed at my pants today.

It seems that all of my dress pants have two forms of closure in addition to the zipper e.g. today�s pants have a button and a hook & eye closure. My husband�s pants have only one button. Why? I can�t say for sure but I�ve come up with four theories.

My first theory is that garment manufacturers are afraid that without a backup method of closure women will just come busting out of their pants, inevitably leading to many social catastrophes. Although if this were true you�d think that men�s pants would have the same extra level of protection because many a comedy skit begins with a man losing his drawers.

My second theory is that the hook/eye manufacturing industry is in such dire straits that it asked the clothing designers to help increase demand. I guess that�s plausible, but not so likely.

My third theory is that clothing designers are catering to consumers� subconscious belief that more is better. Although that doesn�t explain the difference between pants marketed for men versus pants marketed for women because I�m pretty sure our culture is universally trained to think more is better.

That only leaves my forth theory: the extra closure exists on women�s pants as a kind of failsafe provided thoughtfully by the patriarchy to help protect women�s virtue viz. you and your partner of the moment are getting all hot and bothered, tearing off each other�s clothes, when you undo the first form of closure on your pants, but in the brief pause that exists before you can free yourself from the second, you think, �Wait, I shouldn�t be doing this with my professor/newly-made acquaintance from the biker bar/priest/best friend�s spouse/insert any name here,� thereby giving you a clear mind to put the kibosh on the whole thing.

I think the theory has merit. Of course I can�t test my hypothesis. I just don�t think my husband would appreciate my hitting the biker bars to do the necessary field research.