News you can use

View from the North 40: Queen of exposure patrol

The Montana legislative Judicial Committee quickly shot down an indecency law referendum proposed this session. In this display of infinite wisdom, it has also shot down my chance at a job upgrade.

Thanks for sucking the joy out of my life Congress.

House Bill 365, sponsored by Rep. David Moore, a Republican from Missoula, proposed to the House Wednesday that the state’s indecency law be changed from practical language about criminal deviancy to, well, totally awesome language that opens a world of opportunity for those of me who recognize a golden opportunity.

I’ve taken the liberty of [cleaning up the language] for our family-oriented newspaper, but the current law basically says: “a person commits the offense of indecent exposure if the person knowingly or purposely exposes the person's [down-there parts] under circumstances in which the person knows the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm in order to: (a) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade another; or (b) arouse or gratify the person's own sexual response or desire or the sexual response or desire of any person.”

Moore proposed changing the language to basically read: “the person knowingly or purposely a) exposes the person's [down-there parts], [special hair, covering or associated with the down-there parts], or [um, back-door part] or exposes the areola or nipple of the person's breast with anything less than a fully opaque covering while in a public place or visible from a public place without taking reasonable precautions to prevent exposure, and disregards whether a reasonable person would be offended or alarmed by the act; or (b) exposes any device, costume, or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates [all that stuff from part A, blah blah blah].”

By the by, it goes on to say: “Indecent exposure does not include an act of breastfeeding by a mother.”

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously, with giggles but no discussion, to kill the bill — and thus kill my fledgling dream of being Montana’s first indecent exposure police commissioner.

Oh, my stars and garters, though, for a while there, I had my ambitions.

I was going to clean up this state as the ultimate dictator-in-chief of reasonable prudence.

Not wanting to mess with the women’s fashions — boooring — I was going to go straight past the bare mid-drifts and yoga pants to mandatory, full-body burqas, with the head scarf being optional. We aren’t Middle Eastern Muslims for crying out loud.

The only exceptions would be 1) swim wear, styled on late-1800s fashions, would allow bloomers of a length to just below the knee and, 2) breasts of nursing mothers could be bared to the moms’ content. Let your nipple flags fly, ladies, it’s the law.

Men, on the other hand, I would be monitoring closely.

No speedos, not even on the beach. Men must hide their down-there parts under loose-fitting shorts that reach below the knee and secure, tightly, high on the waist. We don’t want any accidental exposure, and who’s to say where the men’s indecent down-there hair becomes chest or leg hair, or (brace yourselves) back hair. That judge is me, of course, and I would have my eye on that.

Besides, the swim bottoms will go well with the full-shirt swimsuit tops. In fact, absolutely no tank tops or rampant shirtlessness at any time. A nipple’s a nipple, and as the official state nipple nazi, I will be examining the men closely for any slippages. It would be my duty.

No tight pants, including sports uniforms and rodeo Wranglers (I see what you're doing there guys, don't think I'm not looking) unless fully covered by a flowing shirt — which, to be lawful, must be totally opaque whether by thickness of material or layers of undergarments.

Plumbers cracks will be punished to the full extent of the law, which allows for up to a $500 fine and six months jail time on the first offense. Keep that back-door mess tucked into your drawers, gentlemen.

Moore got that right anyway.

(“We have met the enemy and he is us,” the “reasonable” people, at [email protected].)

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 
Rendered 03/27/2024 15:05