Boxers or Briefs?

You certainly won't see London, and you definitely won't see France-at least not in the Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Lynwood's recent law now makes underwear exposure illegal. Get caught sporting 3 inches or more of your undergarments in public and you could have to pay a $25 fine.

Oh, and just when you think it can't get any better than this: Lynwood mayor Eugene Williams says that underwear exhibitionists drive away "economic development." Seriously? I mean, if this were the case, consider somewhere like Iowa City. If skin exposure, let alone underwear exposure, really turned away business, then would someone please explain to me why an Iowa City bar like Brother's does so well on a Friday or Saturday night when at least half of its patrons are wearing next to nothing? I find it hard to believe that underwear exposure is enough to deter business from an area.

And couldn't this be considered a form of self-expression? I mean, hey, if someone wants to show the world their tighty-whities or just how great they think they look in a thong, then why should lawmakers stand in their way? Just as a person has the right to show off his or her tattoo, dress in polka dot pant suits, or wear a Speedo, a person should also reserve the right to tell the world: BOXERS, not briefs!

No, I don't enjoy seeing people's bloomers as I'm walking down the street. In fact, it makes me feel reaally uncomfortable. But I also know that hindering a person's ability to express him or herself is an infringement of rights.

And I wonder-where does this $25 go if you get a ticket? Obviously Fruit of the Loom doesn't see a dime. All in all, there are better ways to rework economic development. Why not plant some trees, spruce the area up a bit? But somehow I doubt telling a few people to pull up their pants will bring in a new shopping mall...