A Derriere Dilemma...Again

Fashion trends come and go with regularity. It's easy to understand why, too: if fashion never changed, people would not have to buy new stuff, rendering everyone's closet to look like mine. I have many items that I've had for years, seeing no real reason to donate them to Goodwill simply because fashion is not that important to me. But for the industry, change is necessary. Remember the midriff tops that parents and schools were decrying just a couple of years ago? Gone. Low-rise jeans? not so much. Daisy Dukes? Well, they're still around until winter sets in. Fact is, trends of today will be trends for "old people"in a couple of years, so I don't get too worried about it, even though "back in the day," if I had worn what a lot of others are currently wearing, it would have been a sign of desperate poverty not fashion, even without the $75 jeans that are ripped in five or six places.
Larry Platter ("General" to his fans) called the nation's attention to the fad of guys wearing jeans more than a few sizes too big and allowing them to fall well below the hips...remember "Pants on the Ground?" The fact that this style was born of necessity in the prison system where inmates get loose-fitting uniforms with no belts (for obvious reasons). This fashion statement caught on in the urban centers and spread like, well, like cheeks hanging out of the top of pants (not to be confused with the "muffin top" feature in women's clothing!). Personally, I thought that having the crotch that far down would cause a rash on the inner thighs, and reaching for a wallet or a weapon would be made that much more difficult when one's pants were lower...but then, I've never been to prison except to visit.
Schools, churches and small towns marshalled their forces to rid the world of such scandalous attire, making clothing banning more popular that removing The Catcher in the Rye or the Harry Potter series from school libraries. and, lest you forget, the furor has yet to die down in places like Dublin, Georgia, where the mayor intends to sign into law an ordinance that would establish fines of up to $200 for lawbreakers apprehended wearing items of clothing " ...more than 3 inches below the top of the hips, exposing bare skin or undergarments." To make certain that this ordinance is enforceable, the "crime" was placed in the public indecency category and equated with masturbation, fornication and urination in public.
May Phil Best said that he acted as the result of people who complained to him and thought he should "do something." I hope Mayor Best is aware that the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, recently lost its case in court when it tried to defend the enactment of a similar statute.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not enamored at seeing all the laxity in clothing styles and "respect" (as many people term this occurrence). Heck, I'm not a big fan of young people wearing baseball hats four times too big for their melons with their ears stuck under the cap, either...and I'm certainly not a big proponent of all the folks who have tattoos in the small of their backs where their pants should be or several piercings in places where it looks like it would be painful...but it's all about personal expression as I see it. If people want to feel uncomfortable ( I mean, who wears long, very baggy pants when it's 100 degrees outside for comfort?) or present the image of having recently emigrated from Borneo, great. It's not me; I wouldn't do it, but they are welcome to. Image is important to all of us.
I'd like to project the image of someone who is employed or employable.
At least I would look like I belonged in Dublin, Georgia. Now, whether or not that's a GOOD thing is up for debate.