Sunday, March 05, 2006

The Pants Age Test

Consider the following situation:

You have to wear regular pants (i.e. not shorts, not capris, not those stupid cullotte things).

You have to wear regular socks and shoes with your pants (i.e. no bare feet and sandals, no hose and pumps).

Your day is spent in equal parts sitting down or standing up, visible at all times to people you don't want to look frumpy and gross in front of.

There are only two lengths of pants available. The shorter length looks fine when you stand up, but rides up when you sit down, so that you can see the skin of your legs above your socks. Even if you pull your socks up and the pants down, the interplay of pants and socks and leg shape will always cause the hems of the pants to ride up above the socks in short order. The longer length looks fine when you sit down, but drags on the floor when you stand up. You aren't going to trip on the hems, but you might tread on them occasionally.

Do you choose the shorter pants or the longer pants?

I propose that, regardless of your chronological age, if you choose the shorter pants you are old, and if you choose the longer pants you are young.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Self-consciousness knows no age.

Anonymous said...

You aren't going to trip on the hems, but you might tread on them occasionally.

I have enough pants with varying degrees of hem-fray caused at least partially from being stepped on once in awhile that I must still lean toward the young side of my actual age. By this standard, at least.

heather said...

i concur.