David “Doc” Moore said he was joking when he told a reporter that he thought yoga pants should be banned. The Missoula representative introduced legislation last week that tried to strengthen the state’s indecent exposure law in response to some naked and scantily clad bicyclists who rolled through his town last summer.
Under the bill, tight-fitting beige clothing could be considered indecent, and after the House Judiciary Committee hearing, he told the Associated Press, “Yoga pants should be illegal anyway.” The proposal was quickly tabled, but not before it went viral and drew interest from a number of national news outlets.
Moore’s legislation would include as indecent “any device, costume, or covering that gives appearance or simulates” a person’s private parts. While the lawmaker was hoping to deter a repeat of the “Bare as You Dare” bike ride in Missoula, which upset many of his constituents, perhaps the entire Legislature should avoid the issue of how people dress for the remainder of the session.
Before lawmakers convened in Helena, House leadership circulated an updated dress code explaining “members of the Montana Legislature are required to dress in formal business attire during the session.” It probably should have stopped there, but instead included a series of bullet points, one of which directed women to “be sensitive to skirt lengths and necklines.”
At the time, House Minority Whip Jenny Eck told Lee Newspapers that the “phrase is right out of the 19th century.” And she’s right. What makes it more bizarre is the change in dress code was not in response to women actually wearing revealing clothing. Yet neither that nor Moore’s proposal is surprising, as summed up by Washington Post writer Alexandra Petri: “As long as the idea persists that woman must be responsible not just for their own attire but for men’s thoughts, it’s not nearly as unbelievable as it should be.”
And that’s a problem – one that is not limited to the Montana Legislature.
Last year, yoga pants and especially leggings made news as several school districts across the country began banning them because they were “distracting” other pupils. Girls were humiliated, parents were upset and students staged walkouts.
How students dress is a conversation worth having among school district personnel, but Christian Science Monitor reporter Lisa Suhay also asked a fair question after the controversy came to a head in Massachusetts: “How does something as soothing as comfortable pants designed for the practice of meditation and fitness become such a regular hot button issue?”
In Montana, the response to Moore’s bill has largely been lighthearted. Tamarack Brewing Company in Missoula changed the name of its beer “Sip ‘n’ Go Naked” to “Sip ‘n’ Go Yoga Pants” and offered it for $1. Another brewery there, Draught Works, simply offered free beer to anyone wearing yoga pants or speedos.
Montana Code Annotated already says indecent exposure includes a person knowingly exposing themself to “cause affront or alarm” to others. A first offense carries a penalty of up to $500 and six months in jail; a third offense carries a fine up to $10,000 and 100 years in prison.
Municipalities can and should enforce the law on the books. As the Associated Press mentioned in its story on Moore’s legislation, “the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. that state prohibitions on public nudity are constitutional.”
At the same time, discussions of yoga pants and hemlines at the state Legislature are a really bad idea. Even if I weren’t dating a fitness instructor who wears yoga pants of varying colors to work every day, I would still believe that.