Skip to content

Do We Really Need the Extra Buttons?

by mike on September 20th, 2005

Yesterday, Jodi and I came home from our respective duties, which require that we dress in business formal clothing. This means a skirt and blouse or dress for Jodi and a tie and jacket for myself. I gleefully headed upstairs to remove my oppression attire. I appreciate that the traditional suit is a light-absorbing color made from the fur of an animal that lives in the cold upper climate of the mountains, and that it is worn with a tight collar and sleeves so there is no risk of comfort to the wearer.


So I get upstairs, and soon thereafter am summoned downstairs. I hollar back that I shant be but a minute, and actually believe it. Several minutes later, I am summoned again, to which I respond in exasperation that I am still disrobing. As I think about the circumstances, I realize I have no less than three layers on my upper person counting the undershirt, and a noose tie. Included in the ensemble are at least sixteen buttons, not counting the four spares, the pants hook, a belt, and the two cuff links. I also have socks and shoes with annoying wiry laces.
Jodi, however, has a cotton dress with no buttons, no zipper, no hook, and no sleeves. She has two articles of underwear, one of which has a clip or hook. Her shoes have no laces and she is not wearing socks.
I did not challenge her to race.
This brings another question to mind. Why, oh why, do men’s suit pants have two or more anchor points for joining the front flaps? Jeans, and most pants, have a single anchor point and a zipper. Men’s dress pants often have a hook, then an extra button or two buried somewhere deep under the left flap, near the hip flexor. This is a problem. When using the restroom, one must first unhook the belt, then unhook the pants, then fish down there to get the other button(s) undone. Everyone knows how hard it is to work a button one-handed, and no guy wants to run both hands down the front of his pants in a public restroom. This increases the difficulty of the one-handed unbuttoning because the pants are still buttoned and we got our arm stuck down there, increasing the effective size of the waist, thus applying more pressure to the anchor point. What if it’s an emergency trip?!

From → humor

4 Comments
  1. Neal permalink

    Mike, if we had fewer buttons …
    1. men would use less time in the restroom …
    2. women would think we’d need even less restroom space …
    3. lines for MEN outside public restrooms. would be created.
    Perish the thought!

  2. Glenda permalink

    And to think that I have always thought that women had it
    tougher! Yeah, modern women!
    Thanks for the view from the other side, Mike.

  3. Daphne permalink

    Just out of curiosity, is it really necessary to have to unhook, undo and probe through all the aforementioned hassle in order to use the resty? I mean, can’t a man simply unzip his fly, reach into “you know where,” jiggle his “you know what” free and go? It seems possible the task is identified as more difficult than it needs to be…

  4. Daphne, you do have a point. Some of what I claim may be unnecessary, though remember there a few pre-conditions that must be met should a man choose to operate in such a manner as you suggest:

    • The man must remember to wear underwear with a peephole.
    • He must not mind having his manhood subjected to the strain of wriggling it through a complicated web of underwear, tucked shirt flaps, and narrow pant portals.
    • He also must have nerves of steel, and steady hands, to navigate this ever-so-tender operation safely between the hungry teeth of the unforgiving iron zipper.
    • He must be confident that the no-drip policy he has imposed on himself can and will be adhered to. Otherwise, he must have a believable coffee accident excuse.

    So you can see the trade-offs. One is quite safe, but inconvenient, while the other offers quite the opposite.

Comments are closed.