Monday, May 14, 2007

I can see your underwear, part deux.

I s'pose I talk about underwear quite a bit (i.e. I can see your underwear (part one), In appreciation of Aussies). But I mustn't write about it that much because I haven't made an underwear 'label' for my posts. I still could, but I'm feeling blog-lazy at the moment... After all, it's summer- MUST GET OUTSIDE!

Speaking of getting outside, I was on a patio scarfing down some honey brown on the weekend and doing the usual people-watching. Lately I've been paying a lot of attention to jeans on men and what I call the phenomenon of fit. How low/high should they go? I think you can generally tell a guy's age by how high (and tight) his jeans ride. If his pants are too short in the leg because he's cranked them up to his ribcage, revealing a hint of a moose knuckle in the process, then he's probably over 40 and very proud of the moose knuckle to boot! If his pants are low-riding so that both butt cheeks are riding above the belt, then he's probably under 20... The exception for the young guy is if he's a computer nerd or geeky grad student, he'll still have those pants cranked up regardless of age. The exception for the older guy is if he's got a big belly because the paunch physically prevents the normal natural upward movement of the jeans.

Something I hadn't seen before was a young guy who had underwear that looked like jeans. At first glance, using my theory, you may have guessed him at about 30 years old. But oh no, if you examine the photo you'll see his actual jeans are dark and riding at about the 20 year old level!



Yes, a very tricky situation indeed... Translation: Michie stay away, no pouncing this one you little cougar cub!!! Wait a minute, did I just talk to myself there? And further to that, did I do it in the third person? Oh Lord, time to wrap this thing up...

As an aside, Nate's shirt kills me (on the right side of the top photo)... It says, "I have the body of a God" with a picture of Buddha.

No comments: