new white sweat socks

Here is a universal question: Why is it that such a large percentage of the population feels the need to walk outdoors in their very newest whitest sweat socks? This doesn't seem to happen with the older, grayer models that have lost their underfoot padding. Except in the cases of the truly hardcore sockwalkers, it seems to be the most universal to walk to the mailbox, to take out the trash, to go a short distance without putting shoes on those nice new socks.

this seems to be virtually universal among people under 30. were they raised in such affluence that the act of ruining new socks with a permanent black footprint became the suburban equivalent to urban tagging? ("Just make a permanent mark on them, ruin them in your mother's opinion. It's easier than geting up in the middle of the night to ruin the front of a building--after all, it's usually a building that needs to be painted, anyway---but the socks...well, they're just a disposable part of my life. After all, they came in a bag of six pairs...") is it indeed a first sign of incipient rebellion that grows to purposeful ripping of holes in jeans? of dripping paint or mustard on a shirt in such a way that the effect will be brilliant and long-lasting?

this seems to be a laundry rant. but it's about something more. is it about "ownership" (my brother won't want these socks now 'cause i put my print on them"?) or about that ubiquitous suburban teen notion that "there are people who will produce more clean socks for me, more new socks, even without asking...because my mom would be embarrassed for me to go out with crappy socks on." perhaps it's like that litterer who litters in a kind of rich-kid innocence that assumes the maid (even in a public park) will be along in a minute to clean up?

and it is an innocence of sorts, for the person who has never cleaned up his or her own mess quite often is oblivious to the need. (this guilt is laid squarely at the feet of parents of everyone younger than 30: ran them to the mall, took them to soccer, washed or replaced socks and clothes so that instead of "no child left behind" it was 'no child ever embarrassed.' with name brands up to date, all the cool details...if it has a hole, throw it away; don't even give it to charity.)

we kept them ridiculously safe, over-cared-for and in the bubble of unreality that has caused many of them to melt down when faced with the nasty world. hence, they return to the safe, warm nest and stay home with mom. they're no fools; they dimly recognize that maid service is not free in other venues.

perhaps you've heard the older country song in which the young girl is described as "a wild one with an angel's face/a womanchild in a state of grace; when she was three years old on her daddy's knee, he said, 'you can be anything you want to be...'/ now she's a wild one running free." this is quite closely related to the essential innocence of the child described above. when her daddy set her on his knee with his touchy-feely-happy message, he probably wasn't thinking professional hooker or drug dealer. BUT he told her she could be whatever she wanted! So in a sense, she is truly innocent, for daddy is the one who created the monster.

i won't start on the level of ignorance most kids have about simple, daily living issues. it's part of the same dysfunctional system. we have in one sense manipulated our kids into this dependence through our inability to take time with them and explain the basics of life. (witness a conversation recently with 11 and 13 year olds who had never seen a teakettle nor heard one...they knew only that it was an irritating noise. they didn't know how it worked or why it whistled.)

we'll save the ignorance factor and the loss of dyadic parenting (or the misplaced dyad) for another rant.