There's a Scottish pub near my house. It's a fun place to go for good food, a cool drink, and a warm atmosphere. The staff are nearly all young lads and lassies who are attractive and well-mannered. Some wear kilts and have the title words to this story printed on their shirts and blouses. The same question is printed on the pub's napkins. It's not an invitation. It's done in fun and no one is offended by it.
The Supreme Court in Massachusetts takes a broader and a more public view of this subject. In a ruling yesterday, they reversed the conviction of a man who liked to take pictures of men's and ladies' body parts whilst aiming his cellphone camera in, around, under, or through any opening in the passenger's clothing with a focus on their crotch areas while traveling on public transportation. These camera buffs apparently delight in transmitting pictures that most of us would rather not show the world. According to the Supreme Court you have no private parts insofar as cellphone carriers are concerned. Peeping Toms may snap, click, or pop whatever it is that you are not concealing completely. Your private parts are now public parts to be captured, stored, viewed, and sent around the world in a swirl of viral numbers. It's the law.
Most of us who have lived longer than 20 years or so have seen body parts that were accidentally exposed to our view. It's part of life. With a wink and a nod—perhaps a smile—we went about our business none the worse for wear, or no wear, as the case may be. Few are offended by a momentary glimpse of things down under even when done by ecdysiasts.
But who would ever have guessed that stodgy, old Supreme Court justices would show us the naked truth behind their shriveled up minds and rule in favor of camera buffs who delight in capturing for posterity what's up our kilts? It makes you wonder what these jurists do when they inspect evidence behind closed doors while “in camera.”
Ecdysiasts? You had me running for my Google dictionary again… I wish you wouldn't do that… Exposing my ignorance with your tease.
I've never had the slightest interest of what is under a kilt because kilts are predominantly worn by men and I've seen enough men in school showers to never have to see another one of those again. As for the high court of Massachusetts deliberations. It is certainly obvious that trivial cases have become the norm and cases of real import are overlooked because lawmakers are failing to address the real needs of the people in favor of their personal idiosyncrasies like their personal abhorrence for the exposed body parts except in closed chambers where the frocks are off and power rules.
Imogene, a country-bred girl, longs to make a life for herself in New York City. She joins forces with her former college roommate to start a movie production company in the big city.
In a post-coup America, an Illinois farm boy is drawn into the resistance by his brother's death. Captured, he is given a choice: betray his friends, or the girl he loves will be lobotomized.
South Baltimore serves as the backdrop for this gripping story of three brothers leading very different lives but joined forever by the secrets of a painful family past.
What's Up Your Kilt?
