go pants yourself

Do you feel better with your pants on? Is that even a question? 

It is, sadly, but only because of the questionable punctuation proceeding those eight words there. It's a prime example of an inquiring inquisition that's totally unecessary; a dubious attempt at a debate that couldn't be anymore superfluous. 

It's rhetorical, God dammit, and without delving into the grammatical reasons why, I'll do my best to parley why you need not bother answering that question, let alone ever put on a pair of pantaloons again.

History speaks for itself, and if I've learned one thing from a pedagogical upbringing, it's that when it comes to the unforeseen future, history still wears the motherfuckin' pants, and you should not.

Historical scenario A: Jesus Christ. If Jesus Tap Dancing Christ had a dance off with the Rapture, would he kick the Rapture's pasty, uncoordinated ass? Aw hell yeah. That's because homeboy didn't wear pants. (The Rapture was last seen wearing assless chaps.)

Historical scenario B: Strippers. When was the last time a stripper made dollars plural wearing pants? It's been weeks. Mainly because a good pair of pants leaves too much to the imagination, not to mention pants + stripper pole = chaffing.

Controversial historical scenario C: Napoleon. Sure, one could argue that Napoleon Bonaparte wouldn't have risen to prominence in the latter stages of the French Revolution sans pants, but here's the catch: Napoleon was 5'4" tops. He never bought a pair of pants in his adult life. Doing so would have involved venturing into the boy's section at Gap. Weird. Even in France. Napoleon preferred bermuda shorts. He would tuck them into his knee-high socks. Dude liked to show off his calves.

Historical scenario D: Wizards. Robes. That magical breeze.

Now let's retrace our steps back out of Historical Lane and wander down the alley of aesthetics instead. Here are some case studies to nibble on while you squirm uncomfortably in your britches:

Case study A: Cargo pants. As functional as they may seem when your pockets are all stuffed with snacks and pens and shit, you'd honestly look and feel much better if you were in shorts and donning a man purse instead.

Case study B: Spandex. If pantalones were genetical entities, the skin-hugging variety would clearly be the dominant trait. Why would you purchase a pair of corduroys when you could invest in a pair of malleable elastic slacks that effortlessly fit the contours of your curves? Why would you purchase an expensive pair of designer jeans when jeggings now come in a variety of different washes? 

Sidenote: Why be a dirty hipster and purchase a pair of skinny jeans and bring absolutely nothing to the table of society, when you could just as easily sit in your room with the shades down and do the same thing, but pantsless?

Case study C: Zip-off pants. Unless you're trying to cheat on a math test (to which even a simpleton could figure out how to do), zip-off pants come up short in the looks category, especially if you wear them at pants' length before or after math class. Practical? Oh hell yeah. Stylish? Put it this way- in zip-offs, the only catwalk you'll be walking down is the path in your parent's basement that goes from your unmade bed to your cat's dirty litter box.

Case study D: Sagging. You look like a fool. 8,000,000 youtube views can't be wrong. Regardless, there's an indirect correlation between men aging and men sagging. As soon as your breasts start to sag, you tend to buy trousers that fit, or you at least invest in a quality pair of suspenders. 

Note to our nation's youth: don't wait until the droop starts to stop the sagging. Just stop now.

In conclusion, shorts, spandex, robes, jorts, assless man capris- anything, but pants. 

That does it for today's lesson in pantsology. Any rhetorical questions? Didn't think so. Class dismissed.