A Tale of Two Skivvies

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of relief, it was the epoch of irritation, it was the season of Support, it was the season of Neglect, it was the spring of elastic, it was the winter of jersey, we had convenience before us, we had exasperation before us, we were all going direct toward Comfort, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest sensations insisted on its being received, for good or evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. For many, the choice was clear when these superlative comparisons arose. And this conflict of comparison sprang from two households, both alike in dignity, but distinct in fundamental conviction. For to one, there was no greater claim than that of stability, which some have called restrictive, and its devotees held in contempt the negligent audacity characteristic of the liberty the other called its creed, which some have called reckless, lacking the security that sufficient support would undoubtedly provide. And while this age-old feud between houses—or let us call them parties—ultimately precipitated a third provision that attempts to offer the best of both, it seems
otherwise to have justified the superlative degree and required all of the male persuasion to choose their allegiance.

As a man, I have faced such a choice, carefully weighing the platforms and relative qualities of each party, and while others might consider it with equal sobriety, some would suggest it lends quite literal significance to the off-hand remark, by which it is so often trivialized, urging one to get neither party “in a twist.” For others, however, degree of comfort can truly make or break the day. And personal tastes in outer apparel are of a nature totally distinct from those thereunder, especially those nearest the sub-equatorial region. It is quite true that for many, discomfort “down under” can dramatically impact the course of a day from beginning to end, potentially poisoning one’s attitude and making him pervasively moody. On the other hand, being truly at peace “down under” can be such a joy that a wide variety of inconveniences (both great and small) become less impactful, less overwhelming altogether, and one discovers himself able to endure more and fret less given the indwelling satisfaction of being privately serene.


There are other factors to consider, however, among the foremost of which is a physiological theory that has been widely substantiated by practitioners in the field of medicine. The party of the first part (let us call it the Secure Party) is known for its tendency to hold the sub-equatorial treasury of one’s assets and other valuables close to one’s interior. And by this hearth, while surely protecting the valuables (let us call them jewels) from disquieting and occasionally dangerous movement, it is believed the ability to sire, or to yield a greater rate of return through investment, may be negatively impacted. The party of the second part, however (let us call it the Freedom Party), is believed to ensure the return on such an investment by sufficient regulation and balance of certain delicate yet critical degrees. If this is truly the case, it would be well to favor the Freedom Party if a man is of a certain age and situation wherein a profitable investment is timely and sensible. Otherwise, in many cases, favoring the Secure Party, though it ensures the safety of the jewels at the party, or at any party, regardless of the degree of commotion or revelry, may risk a state of the union wherein even the tiniest assets—however abundant—yielded by the investment of said jewels are rendered worthless and ineffective. In such a case, no investment of these miniscule assets en masse merits much hope in the quest to yield a sure profit beyond one's principle. At this point, the Freedom Party becomes the imperative standard by which to revive such conceptive prospects. Long considered a kind of legend of the urban variety, this quandary has occasionally been addressed in the arts. One particular American sitcom dealt quite pointedly with the issue, though clearly not in the lucid tenor of a TV news magazine or afternoon special. In this program, a certain major character (let us, for the moment, refer to him as Kramer), in one particular episode (which could be called “The Chinese Woman”) of a specific season (perhaps six), vacillates with respect to said choice when confronted with his own unprofitable assets, at one point, in devotion to the Secure Party, remarking to his friend and neighbor Jerry, “My boys need a house.” Of course, just a few scenes afterward, this same Kramer leaps to a boycott of both parties, a rather nihilistic option often referred to in honor of a swift and aggressive military, or “commando,” unit. Most men, however, would agree that such is a better object of laughter than a sensible and realistic practice, for reasons that, in truth, seem too self-evident to be here addressed; as the saying goes, ew.

Perhaps a more common and immediate concern is that of simple, everyday convenience and comfort. The Secure Party continually jockeys for a sound and snug conveyance, or carriage, of the previously mentioned treasury while ensuring its convenient accessibility by way of the vertical, horizontal, and y-front edifice, or “fly,” as it is known in common usage, a term that seems to reflect greater resemblance to that of a tent than the door to a barn, as has often been suggested, though this is largely a matter of perspective and less a matter of debate. And yet, the proximity of jewels and assets not only threatens the viability of one’s profitable enterprise, but may on occasion deliver a state of either abrasive or raveled distress, a state which demands the continual and altogether vexing task of carefully repositioning, or juggling, one’s assets. It has often been said, familiarity breeds contempt, and like rats in a cage, stallions in a corral, or yuppies trapped in an out-of-service elevator, the treasury does not always profit by exceedingly close quarters, thereby compelling the emancipation offered by the Freedom Party, the trunks of which are capacious enough to lend swift resolution to the crisis of proximity. Many, myself included, have been tempted by such controversial defection, a conflict that can only be truly resolved through a conscientious and painstaking sojourn in both houses. Yes, I have indeed been an intermittent member of both parties, by which efforts I have realized that, to a great extent, time is key. As with so many ideological and pragmatic issues, if you spend enough time in that house, you begin to understand its point of view and to fully appreciate its amenities. In addition, much depends on the brand and size of each party. And these, too, must be carefully considered and resolved so as to maximize the potential for peace and freedom, for justice and the collective good.

Certain mutinies and the attempt to maximize opportunity eventually led to the fusion of platforms and the founding of a third house, which employs a unique balance of desired characteristics. Some have found this suitable. But in truth, this third party candidate, again depending on brand and size, may still bear the drawbacks of each predecessor, including the occasionally unsupportive as well as abrasive despondencies. Can these ever be overcome? Every man must labor to answer the question for himself. Each must wrestle, on his own, to solve the perilous riddle of Comfort. For myself, I will say only this. I have found it a simple and irrefutable truth that for all things there is a time and place, a season and a country. I see before me a balance of power in a land of opportunity. Let justice prevail. Let freedom ring. I have found in this vision my own choice, and it has made all the difference. Yes.

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known. Hehe.