October 27, 2005

View Comments | Post Comment

By request, #2: Zipper, or Button-Fly?

Per a request by my roommate Ryan Lovin (he loves when I link to that post), I am here discussing my thoughts on the case of Button-Fly v. Zippers.


27 § 10 Barz. Blog. Supp. (Barzelay.net 2005)

Held, Button-Fly has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever of their case against Zipper. They claimed, correctly, that button-flies are estopped from painfully catching one's penis while fastening, but this claim presumes the negligence of the wearer. This court cannot allow such a presumption, as a reasonable person takes great care in protecting his or her cock and balls.

Button-Fly fails completely in all its other claims against Zipper. Some members of this court have entertained Button-Fly's claim that under the doctrine of laches, Zipper is simply no longer "in," and have concluded that Button-Fly should be awarded judgment as a matter of law. But this argument is incorrect, and would in fact better support Zipper's case, since common law knowledge shows the button-fly to have pre-dated the zipper.

In addition, zippers have the added advantage of coming undone less easily, which is important since shifting the loss of a button to a tailor is a big hassle, and the jeans are otherwise ruined.

Lower courts have held disparate opinions on this matter, and this case should serve to unify the courts, as well as clarify the substantive distinction between things being merely stylish, and things being too annoying for it to matter how stylish they are. Jean companies may now proceed in their manufacturing with only a single standard of law to obey: Use a fucking zipper.

Reversed and remanded for immediate re-trial of all jeans with button-fly.

Posted at October 27, 2005 1:45 AM | Comments (4)


Comments

Post a new comment


You, sir, demonstrate wisdom beyond your years. Had your parents more prescience your name would surely be Learned Hand Barzelay…or something of similar import. For recognition of the subservience of fashion to function, and that the button fly is surely the bane of the inebriated man’s existence, you are to be praised. Cheerio…

Posted by: Ryan at October 27, 2005 8:42 AM


Button-fly is way better. If it is a good button-fly, it just rips right off...so much easier than having to find the little zipper thing and pull it down. So yea - for purposes of peeing and hooking up - button-fly.

Posted by: Cara at October 28, 2005 5:01 PM


But the same convenience that makes it easy to rip off also makes it occasionally come undone when it shouldn't. Perhaps women's jeans are better for button-fly since they are tighter, and the extra tension on the buttons keeps them buttoned. In any case, it's really not at all hard to find a zipper. You know right where it's going to be. And even if it is easier to undo, zippers are definitely easier to do.

Posted by: David Barzelay at October 28, 2005 5:25 PM


I hold that zippers come undone easier than button flies. An old or poor zipper will fail to "lock" and by the force of gravity, expose one's "Cock","Johnson", "Sausage", "Ding-dong", "Pee-Pee", "Dick", "Knob", "Bishop", "Peter", "Schlong", "Skin Flute", "Pik"(Dutch), "Braquemard"(French), "Schwanz"(German), "Frusta La Carne"(Italian), "Snabel"(Norwegian), and/or "Pizzle Dizzle"(Doggy Dogg).

However, button flys also have their own disadvantages. With each pants-fastening lifestyle having its own unique benefits and hinderances, who is the court to decide our preferences? Why not leave the choice to the free market?

Besides, research is continually showing that some people may be predisposed to wear either a zipper or a button fly. In other words, they're just "born that way." I for example, was born with a pair of button-fly Levi's on.

It is not my choice, nor is it the government's responsiblity, under the judicial activism of Judges like Judge Barzelay, to regulate how I fasten or unfasten my jeans in the privacy of my own home before thrusting my member into a the asshole of a consenting transsexual.

Posted by: Chris Santoro at October 28, 2005 7:12 PM

Post a new comment