The Death of the Pant (or skirt or short)

2009 is real. 

Sorry about the long hiatus, however, the Jet Generation staff–this writer in particular– was quite occupied with a few things:

1. A re-discovery of the magic of Kingdom Hearts that hasn’t been felt since the lonely days of high school.

Annnnd that’s about it.

But hey, we’re still cool and shit so we’re back.

There’s a bunch of things that were supposed to be posted before the new year, however, they weren’t and so we’ll get to getting you guys that stuff later on.  Seriously, it’s awesome stuff.  Like music mixes and Jet Generation original hentai artwork.

Of more immediate concern, however, is the emergence of models walking around international runways in shorts that are actually passable as underwear.  Is this real?  Is this a dream?  This is amazing?  It is indeed.  I mean underwear is underwear but these are shorts (as in outerwear!).  Regardless, there is something a bit disconcerting about diminishing thread counts at high fashion events.  I look at this rather arousing trend from two viewpoints:

1) It’s representative of an increasingly apathetic society.

2) It’s representative of a society in the grips of an economic crisis.

These viewpoints, one must note, go hand in hand.  As I’m sure DEMOCRATIC AMERICA  has sufficiently drilled into your heads, there’s been a bit of laziness in the past few forevers regarding regulation of the free market that’s been quite an effective means of putting a lot of us in the shits.  And when I say free market, I’m not talking about Capitalism and it’s virtues over all other economic models.  When I say free market, I mean Capitalism and the virtues of mismanagement that’s often stupid and usually illegal.  Right Bernie Madoff?

Money is happiness.

Anyways, apatheticism is an effective catalyst for decadence.  In this case, it’ll be the decay of the economy and the consequent effects this has on society as a whole.

Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder. – Arnold J. Toynbee

I recently had a conversation with a close friend about the state of the music listener as a result of download culture.  Although I’m an avid supporter of .zip, .rar, and .torrent; I’ve felt for some time now that downloading has contributed to the decay of the culture of music.  Specifically, I feel as if downloading music has contributed to an apatheticism towards the actual content of the music that’s downloaded.  As a result, a large part of being a music listener has become simply having the “hot single” (as opposed to having an entire album) and the positive effects that having the album on one’s iTunes (or related player) has on the legitimacy of listing the artist on one’s Facebook or Myspace.  Another more important consequence of all this, however, is the disappearance of any emotional attachment to the artist obtained.  Regarding the last point, there’s a huge possibility that one can obtain some music, sample it, and then quickly discared it to the recycle bin.  This is in direct opposition to the classic methods of actually getting off your comfortable gaming chair, going to the record store, and buying the record.  For some reason, the combination of–first and foremost–SPENDING YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY, then, physically having the album and its related paraphernalia in your hands as you go home to physically place the media (vinyl, cd, cassette, etc) into a specific player–thus eliminating the devastating double click–has this inherent ability of heightening appreciation.  Effort begats appreciation right?  On top of this, because downloading is such a transient lifestyle, songwriting; from a business standpoint, has suffered at the hands of the single.  Not to say that the single is bad, however; as of late, fast music has often equaled fast TRASH (NOTE: see Katy Perry).

Our laziness is contributing to the death of music as an industry and as a culture.  What will happen to music as a business and a way of life if we continue to wallow in the Dionysian pleasures of Kb/s down?

So, that said, I ask you:

Why wear pants?

Pants (or skirts or shorts) exemplify everything that’s pragmatic and unchallenging in contemporary society.  In fact, I wish we could all be Ancient Greece and obsess over human form (NOTE: walk around naked).  I seriously do.  Even fat people.  Unfortunately, there’s Biblical conservatism and/or a boring definition of taste that requires some cover for the genitalia, breasts, and the uglier aspects of individual human form.  Underwear supports and, essentially, conceals genitalia and that, I suppose, is understandable.  But what about pants?

What’s really the point of the pantaloon?

It’s purpose is three-fold in my opinion.  In no particular order:

1) It adds style to the concealing of human form that comforts us so much.

2) It’s good for some storage.

3) It provides warmth/comfort because underwear exposes too much. 

The reality of pants, however, is that it’s an extra step–both physically and financially–to living life.

Before I delve further into that statement, I must connect the dots a bit.  Recently, a few political pundits have portrayed America’s economic crisis as a sign of the collapse of an empire (in the vein of Rome of course).  If this is the case, then why should we give a fuck about wearing pants?

In 2006, Queen Latifah made a film called Last Holiday. 

The plot revolves around a rather tired model of living one’s life to the fullest when one knows that death is near.  In terms of a plot for any kind of story, this is quite dull.  However, who’s to say that this can’t be a viable economic model?  If our empire is going to collapse, indeed, then government and private business have all the right to find some means of preventing that from happening.  It’s in everybody’s best interest.  However, Rome died for our history books.  Is there anything America can actually do? 

It’s cheaper to take off our pants.

The idea of living life to the fullest in the face of one’s demise requires challenging ourselves.  That said, the disapperance of the pant (or skirt or short) on a few high fashion runways, to me, exemplifies a desperate request for pleasure and challenge in the face of decadent mortality.  It also represents doing something that, on Main Street especially, might get a few condescending stares from the boring Right.  To that I say, “What me worry?”  If America is going to implode into a vacuum of unemployment, high finance scandals, and 70% off at Neiman Marcus; then why the fuck should I care?

I proffer another question: If illegal downloading is going to collapse the music industry as we know it, then is the deletion of something as significant as the pant going to do the same for fashion?

Like download culture, the deletion of  the cover for one’s unmentionables is ultimately going to be a cheaper exercise.   In this case, however, these benefits are more inclined towards the retailer than the consumer. On a high fashion level this effect is less relevant because this echelon of clothing dismisses money like champagne.  However, this effect might be more readily felt when the mass market trendsetters like H&M or Forever 21 decide to cash in.  The amount saved on thread and other services rendered–when the only cover necessary is a single piece of underwear–is significant when you think of it from the perspective of  these mass manufacturers. 

In the model of a successful economy, consumer participation is a vital component.  The negative effects of excessive consumer saving–from a business standpoint–is probably well-known by now.  Most noticeable are the high unemployment and job-loss statistics.  Inevitably, suffering businesses go belly-up and the stock market indices buckle from increasingly disappearing market participation.  With investors freaking out and, consequently, selling off; the Dow Jones Industrial falls below 8000, New York sinks into the Hudson, and California becomes a giant volcano. 

Impending doom aside, the emergence of underwear as a viable means of exposing one’s self in public allows for cheaper retail manufacturing and, ultimately, enough of a buffer to lower the total cost of a hip outfit.  Consumers, inevitably, must rejoice at the complete deletion of the pant (or skirt or short) as a necessary purchase.  Women will celebrate and men will want in on this sexy time…

Right?

The only boundary that the underwear short must overcome is the inevitable fear that many have about exposing too much.  That, however, is rectified by another; possibly more vital, component:

SEX.

Even if men don’t join in on the underwear bandwagon–which considering the unfortunately extreme levels of unabashed machismo inherent in the modern American male will most likely be the case–then there is at least some motivation in the fact that women are exposing more skin and, when the game rallies in that direction, that women are required to remove less.

It’s that simple.  On an economic level, there’s a bit more thinking; however, all we need to hear is that the rules of attraction are satisfied and the road to sex is more efficient.

That said, is this enough to save the economy?

Looking above, the answer is NO.

However, what the underwear trend exemplifies is the fashion industry swinging a sexy fist in the face of economic gloom.  The fashion industry, just like any other art form, is escape.  Incredible models walking around in underwear meant to be worn on the streets is in direct defiance to the doldrum conservatism that reducing consumer spending bolsters.

Saving money is boring.

Is it overtly optimistic to state that the emergence of the underwear short is going to save our economy? 

NEVER.

However, fashion is an industry just as much as a form of entertainment.  Dolce and Gabbana must’ve had something in mind when they sent their models out in those shorts.  Does that matter?  Not in the least.  If the Spring 2009 shows from Maison Martin Margiela and Sonia Rykiel have anything to say, fashion is about unabashed fun in the face of a critical society.  So, my friends, I urge you to go out there in your underwear and say FUCK YOU to the boring peddlers conceding defeat to a dying economy.

America needs you.

//Vladimir Sorokoskev