http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/09/low.pants.ap/)
I don't like the idea of this law, since a law isn't going to do anything except cost teens a lot of money that they don't have and further worsen the tension between teens and the police. Generations will always have silly fashion trends, so just get used to it.
Anyway, I think they dropped it, but I just wanna know what you all think.
Some men have no dignity. It is just stoopid. unless you have a shirt to waer over it, you should get in trouble.
(600th post)
It's not just for guys. Have you seen how girls too are wearing their pants these days?
I just dont think the government has any business telling people how to dress. I dont really like seeing people with their pants down, but I dont think it should be illegal.
Here's an idea for people. DON'T LOOK!
I think it's a ridiculous law. Shouldn't even be discussed. I don't like the fashion trend, but I just ignore it, like most things in life.
If people are running nude,or with swastika t shirts, just don't look right?
Not that I mind, it is just stupid. What if they fall down? You cant walk as fast either.
What the hell kind of law is this? You can walk around in boxesr normally, but if you have pants over it that show your boxers, thats a no-no. People need to stop being of afraid of dumb things.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
If people are running nude,or with swastika t shirts, just don't look right?
Your comparison makes no sense and is a complete extreme of what is being discussed. Use relevant comparisons.
Originally posted by Dave Grohl
What the hell kind of law is this? You can walk around in boxesr normally, but if you have pants over it that show your boxers, thats a no-no. People need to stop being of afraid of dumb things.
I wonder how they react to the clothing limits of the beaches, namely that men only wear shorts there anyway.
I'm surprised why we care though, hell in Britain people are perfectly fine with nude beaches.
Irrelevant societal issue that should not even have been brought up and wasted time (and money) upon.
Your comparison makes no sense and is a complete extreme of what is being discussed. Use relevant comparisons.Kipper's comparison may be extreme, but it is relevant and it does make sense. Whether or not one agrees with his point is a different matter.
After all, the interesting aspect of any debate over the relative decency of attire, is where to draw the line. We all think running around in the local shopping mall completely starkers naked is at the very least... a silly idea. Yes? Yes.
What about a naked person wearing shoes? Still undesirable? Yep.
So what about... just wearing underpants? Is that still undesirable? What about a pair of shorts?
When does obscene lack of dress become societally acceptable dress? When the majority reach a concensus, apparently. That, to me, is illogical. Majority decisions are not necessarily logical.
I think we should all wear monotone spandex body suits on pain of death. That way, there would be no debate nor any resentment within communities.
Except resentment against me for making you all wear monotone spandex body-suits. But hey, my shoulders are broad. And they look good in spandex.
Different institutions or businesses, etc on private property can make their own rules ("no shirt, no shoes, no service", "suit and tie required" etc). Even nude beaches have rules (and those rules end once you leave said beaches).
However, I don't see anything indecent about it. I mean these guys (and or girls) ARE wearing something underneath after all.
I always thought the "visible underwear under sagging pants" was really tacky, when I noticed it for the first time from a Marky Mark performance on MTV back in the early 90's.
However, I don't see what the big deal is. This shouldn't be the "fashion police."
I also like how in the article people were trying to turn it into a "racial issue." How moronic.
Indeed, considering it's now more white people doing it than "young blacks".
Or atleast around here and a majority of cities I've been.
Personaly I think these people should pull their Trousers up, I voted yes because of this, I don't think they should be made to do do though. they just need to get some common sense and realise it looks bloody stupid.
I think anytime your underwear is showing, you deserve a ticket. I don't care whether it's boxers or a victoria secret thong.
But the most effective way to get teens to pull their pants up to conform to a school dress code is ridicule, "pull your pants up, son! Nobody wants to see your skid marks!" This usually gets a laugh out of his chums as he pulls them up instead of an argument.
But in the end, it's just a counter-culture thing. They do it to find a way to not fit in with "mainstream" society and to stand apart only to end up fitting in with another culture and looking like everyone else. It'll go the way of bell-bottoms and afros by going out of style only to return again to haunt them as parents and grandparents.
Different institutions or businesses, etc on private property can make their own rules ("no shirt, no shoes, no service", "suit and tie required" etc). Even nude beaches have rules (and those rules end once you leave said beaches).However, I don't see what the big deal is. This shouldn't be the "fashion police."Yes, each private area has its own dress code... but so does the street, and that's what I remarked on when I noted that the line had to be drawn somewhere...
I personally don't see how legislation that deems showing your underpants to be criminal... is bad in any way. Just as the rule at work is to "wear a suit and tie", the rule on the street is "don't wave your undies at people".
I also like how in the article people were trying to turn it into a "racial issue." How moronic.Hear hear. I too am fed up of liberals screaming "RACIST ATTACK!!!11" every five minutes.
Originally posted by Spider AL
When does obscene lack of dress become societally acceptable dress? When the majority reach a concensus, apparently. That, to me, is illogical. Majority decisions are not necessarily logical.
This is not about lack of dress. If people were sagging their pants and not wearing underwear it'd be lack of dress.
Originally posted by Kurgan
I mean these guys (and or girls) ARE wearing something underneath after all.
Its obscene. One's underwear should not be made public.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Its obscene. One's underwear should not be made public.
And yet girls will wear boxer shorts over their underwear (if they're wearing any) and there's nothing obscene about it. If I were to just wear boxer shorts one might assume that they are my shorts, and I have underwear underneath.
But if I put pants on over most of those boxer shorts then it is obscene?
I dont sag my pants much, I wear baggy pants, but they stay up right around my hips. I just think that the government should spend time on something actually important, aside from trying to regulate everyone's dress.
You simply can't ban everything you don't like.
You don't like how people dress? Fine. Big deal. Bite it in you.
But to make laws about it? Ridiculous. If you can't tolerate other's people dressing, then it's you who are the problem, not them.
I suppose we then also can make laws about how people are allowed to have their hair, what music they are allowed to listen to, how they're allowed to speak.
A hundred years ago, women weren't allowed to show off their ankles. I thought we were past that level now. Obviously not.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
And yet girls will wear boxer shorts over their underwear
They should get a ticket. Its obscene.
Originally posted by Breton
You simply can't ban everything you don't like.
I don't care if it's banned or not, but obscenity should get a ticket. It'll raise revenue for local government.
Originally posted by Breton
I suppose we then also can make laws about how people are allowed to have their hair, what music they are allowed to listen to, how they're allowed to speak.
I don't care about all that... You won't see their skid marks and pecker tracks in their hair or music (or if you do, perhaps they need something other than a ticket). Its a hygiene thing for me. Obscene. Next thing you'll be saying its okay for women to go around in their maxi-pads as long as the wings cover their hairline.
Originally posted by Breton
You simply can't ban everything you don't like.
You don't like how people dress? Fine. Big deal. Bite it in you.
But to make laws about it? Ridiculous. If you can't tolerate other's people dressing, then it's you who are the problem, not them.
I suppose we then also can make laws about how people are allowed to have their hair, what music they are allowed to listen to, how they're allowed to speak.
A hundred years ago, women weren't allowed to show off their ankles. I thought we were past that level now. Obviously not.
I think there was a popular law in the US too, wherein men weren't allowed to go around shirtless in public, until the 1940's.
There's all sorts of related issues, like how about showing bare breasts in public? Good idea to ban it right? But what about public breast feeding? Etc.
Then there's "public displays of affection." Is having sex in public allowed? How about "making out"? Or just a few kisses? Holding hands? Etc.
It has a lot to do with social views of what's "decent" or "indecent." For example if you have topless women wandering around openly in many US cities, you'll be stopping traffic. But if you did it in certain African cultures, nobody would even notice.
When something is viewed as "scandalous" or indecent, it causes a stir, as in, it's "naughty" and people want to see it (gawking). That, and if it's unusual, people are curious. It's distracting. Also, people often take advantage of this by breaking the rules in order to get attention (like people who go streaking at sporting events and awards shows, or those "nude" animal rights protesters in the US).
There's issues of freedom of expression, but also of sexual harassment, and also simple common sense in some cases.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
They should get a ticket. Its obscene.
Is wearing a bathing suit at the beach obscene...? Or is it fine, because it's a "bathing suit" and not "underwear." Is changing in the locker room for gym class obscene?
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I don't care if it's banned or not, but obscenity should get a ticket. It'll raise revenue for local government.
Teenagers can't afford getting $50 fines. All it will do is end up getting dumped on their parents who have to take time off work to take their teen to court for wanting to "fit-in" by sagging their pants. And what about when some cops are in a "let's piss some kids off" mood and ticket some teen wrongly? Even if the teen could afford it, they'd have to take it to court. It'd be SO MANY cases of this in court and there's already enough people going to court for things that actually matter like speeding tickets and assault & battery.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I don't care about all that... You won't see their skid marks and pecker tracks in their hair or music (or if you do, perhaps they need something other than a ticket). Its a hygiene thing for me. Obscene. Next thing you'll be saying its okay for women to go around in their maxi-pads as long as the wings cover their hairline.
Oh, c'mon. That's like saying people shouldn't be able to show their t-shirts because of underarm sweat.
Showing the top of a boxershorts just above the trousers isn't any more unhygenic than wearing clothes in general. Besides, most people do change underwear often...
You don't like people sagging, fine by me.
Most people, included myself, don't mind it at all.
Why do you want to force your own opinion upon others?
Originally posted by TK-8252
Is wearing a bathing suit at the beach obscene...? Or is it fine, because it's a "bathing suit" and not "underwear." Is changing in the locker room for gym class obscene?
If that bathing suit was being worn while shopping in Walmart, I'd find it inappropriate. The beach or the swimming pool is an appropriate place. Sagging pants and sniffing each others boxers might be appropriate in clubs or at concerts or hanging out with friends, but it, too, doesn't belong in Walmart and definately not in schools. Go to school, sag your pants... get a ticket.
Originally posted by TK-8252
Teenagers can't afford getting $50 fines.
Then they can easily avoid fines by not making public display of their skid marks.
Originally posted by Breton
Why do you want to force your own opinion upon others?
The majority hasn't been polled... only the teenagers seem to oppose the idea. I say make it an item on the next state/local ballots for voters to have their say. If the majority votes for fining/ticketing public display of underwear, then I would disagree with you that I'm "forcing my own opinion upon others." I'd be willing to bet that the voting public would approve the matter.
Oh, yeah... teenagers can't vote until 18 and even then the seldom do. Oh well.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
sniffing each others boxers might be appropriate in clubs or at concerts or hanging out with friends
o_O What?
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Then they can easily avoid fines by not making public display of their skid marks.
You act like everyone in the world is walking around with crap in their pants.
How do you know they aren't? Bacterial abound at the anal opening; wiping with tissue (a Western convention) is the least effective method of removing fecal matter when compared with washing (an Eastern convention); a quick shake at the stand up john doesn't do your drawers justice; and bacteria love the warm, moist folds fo skin around the testicles...
Public display of underwear is obscene and unhygienic.
Most people have rather clean underwear. While there's something unhygenic in stuffing your underwear unto people's faces, there's nothing problematic in showing the clean top of your boxer over your pants.
To me it seems like a poor excuse to get rid of a fashion you don't like.
It's the school systems. the teachers should give detention for not dressing Properly.
let me tell you what happened with the swimsuits over the last 100 years:
100 years ago women's swimsuits were neack to ankle.
gradualy they came to shorter and shorter ankles to gradualy show more and more thier legs.
by 1950, swimsuits shrank doun to where they show the hips and shoulders. later on the middles cut open to show the bellies.
the two piece swimsuit was born. during the 70s - 90s, the bikinis shrank to string bikinis we see today.
- now with the sagging pants, will we see more tacky grossy dressing? Maybie jeans that are designed to show thier butts? it may seem mild to you now, but once WE ALL GET USED TO IT dressing will get more vulgur over the years like the swimsuits did.
Originally posted by Breton
there's nothing problematic in showing the clean top of your boxer over your pants.
Agreed. That'st he real point there, if there IS anything unclean about my underwear, simply being able to SEE it is going to do NOTHING. You're not even seeing skin, you just see cloth which you know is the only layer of clothing between my butt and you, but the same situation arises if I'm not wearing underwear. Should there be fines for not wearing underwear?
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Should there be fines for not wearing underwear?
Oh I can see it now. :p
Cop: Hey you, let me look down your pants. Teen: ...
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
it may seem mild to you now, but once WE ALL GET USED TO IT dressing will get more vulgur over the years like the swimsuits did. Taking pride in your (fit) body is anything but vulgar, I feel this whole thing actually inspires a more healthy body image, that is until we get the anorexic/bulimic people. But working out and keeping a steady healthy diet to boost self-esteem is anything but vulgar. Does it belong in everyday fashion? no, but that's not even a consideration.
All this is, is the top bit of the underwear. I personally don't like it, especially since it makes absolutely no sense, but I don't think people should be fined for stupidity that only harms them in the short and long run.
Point is it's a stupid pointless law that wastes tax money when it could be better spent on REAL crime, like murder and rape, especially rape as most sex crime departments are disgustingly underfunded.
And Skin, I don't say this as a teen, I say this as a person who's lost many friends and family members to real crime. Not this power abusive crap.
Hey, I'm just saying that I see it as obscene, vulgar and non-hygienic. From my perspective.
Moreover, private and public institutions should be free to set and enforce dress codes as they see fit, if it means you get a fine or suspension from school from repeated violations, so be it. If that means that security can turn you away from shopping malls and public buildings, so be it.
If that means that these same institutions choose not to deal with it, so be it.
But should the issue ever appear on a ballot, I'm sure I'll vote in favor of any measure to counter it, if only to have my opinion counted democratically.
But yeah... it looks cool:
http://www.torntempleveil.com/photos/ttv_saggin'.jpg)
One good thing that will come out of the recent legislation in Virginia is that it may motivate young people to register to vote.
Originally posted by TK-8252
[B]Is wearing a bathing suit at the beach obscene...? Or is it fine, because it's a "bathing suit" and not "underwear." Is changing in the locker room for gym class obscene?
The easy answer for that is that different settings have different rules.
Thus being nude on a nude beach is okay, but being nude in the middle of town isn't. And even if it's not publically obscene, businesses have the right to refuse you if it's against their rules.
I'm thinking that Skinwalker has a point in that some people do this to "rebel" (and end up "fitting in" with some other group anyway), so they do it for the attention it gets them. There seems to be no practical advantage to wearing clothes that don't fit (maybe making theft easier? I dunno).
Teenagers can't afford getting $50 fines.
True enough. Maybe they're hoping that these kids will rely on their parents to bail them out, thus making the parents upset with their teens and take a more active role in how they dress & behave in public.
Of course this would penalize kids who don't have a good working relationship with their parents or who have poor folks. But, it would just be a way to force them to conform, just like any other rule. Speed Limits penalize people who like to drive fast.
But I'd agree with you that speeding tickets are far more important than dress codes! ; )
And a $50 fine does seem like a lot. If it's for a lot of offenses, maybe, but parking tickets and speeding tickets can be a lot less, and have a much greater impact on society, so while it sounds designed to scare them into obeying the rules, it is a bit stiff.
PS: As far as using a bidet, I don't know if that's very clean either, but vs. TP? Perhaps. Though isn't there still the possibilty of "splash damage" (ewww) at the pot?
Anyway, I guess a good compromise would be handi-wipes or something. Still, it seems like at least around here a lot of people don't wipe (or flush). These are strange, alien concepts to them (or else they have a grudge against janitors and other humans).
Originally posted by Kurgan
I'm thinking that Skinwalker is right in that some people do this to "rebel" (and end up "fitting in" with some other group anyway), )
Actually I'd say most do it simply to fit in. They want to dress and match their peers, and the current style is sagging pants.
I think it's fine if a business, or a school, or some other institution wants to set their OWN dress codes and enforce them, that's fine by me. But for the government to step in and make that decision is completely rediculous.
How can this be rebelling if it's mainstream? Rebelling is going against the norm and accepted (socially or not).
and your speed limits comparison is out of base, the saggy pants harms noone but the person with saggy pants. Speeding is proven dangerous to everyone.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Actually I'd say most do it simply to fit in. They want to dress and match their peers, and the current style is sagging pants.
I think it's fine if a business, or a school, or some other institution wants to set their OWN dress codes and enforce them, that's fine by me. But for the government to step in and make that decision is completely rediculous. exactly. It's the idea of government mandated dress codes, it disgusts me. North Korea anyone?
Government mandated dress codes already exist. Do you think you could walk to the mall, spend the day, and come home while wearing crotchless pants and going commando?
Do you think your mom could go everywhere a man can without a shirt?
It's important to note that these "mandates" mirror the overall society's value system (the latter example above is perfectly acceptable in many non-Western cultures of the world), so I would expect that public display of underwear wouldn't peg too high on the concern meter, but you have to admit: the government does make mandates on how to dress in public... you just agree with the mandates the majority of the time.
Yet in your examples the clothing that is restricted is displaying parts of human anatomy that in our culture is private. My boxer shorts are not part of my anatomy. You can see boxer shorts anytime you go to a clothing store.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Also not part of the human anatomy is this (
http://listing.hk.business.yahoo.com/images/products/1165/88655.jpg) or even this (
http://a1468.g.akamai.net/f/1468/580/1d/pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/37763/200.jpg), yet I bet you would rather not have people walk around with them exposed. So, I may not enjoy it but I wouldn't enjoy the government banning it from being displayed. What I would do is avoid putting myself into places where that'd be likely. People do, have, and say stupid crap. What I do is ignore it, or just prevent myself from having to put up with it. There's lot of things I really dislike, some that I even find a bit shameful, but that doesn't mean I complain to officials to make it illegal. It's just clothing, it's nothing that poses actualy health problems or any danger at all. Perhaps mental health but if that kind of thing destroys your sanity you need work anyway.
The exposed crotch thing you said, it's not so much that it's for dress code, but public safety, a brush on the bits could unknowingly spread disease. That's why we have public nudity laws, is safety.
So why couldn't a bacterial culture propagate in the fabric of boxers and migrate up to the portion exposed? As a matter of discussion, I've noted that it isn't merely the top portion of boxers that is exposed, but the trousers are frequently worn so that the "waist" band is below the buttocks, thus exposing the anal-cavity-to-fabric portion of the boxers to the air and whatever surface the sagger sits upon.
Its obscene and a public health hazard.
If this is about a health issue, then everyone should wear a hat because they might have head lice and it could jump in the hair of others. They also should wear gloves to avoid the transmission of the flu, cowpox and other harmful disease. They should aslo have to wear a mask, because some people really have bad breath... :rolleyes:
Enough sarcasm though, I highly doubt one's healthy could be jeopardized by seeing, being close or even touching the exterior of someone's underpants. If you're licking or sniffing down someone else's underwear then it's your problem... And if the bacteria could spread (yay ! migrating feces) and infect event the top part of the underwear, couldn't it aslo infect the pants ? Then would we need a 3rd layer to protect ourselves ?
Betcha those guys that wanted this law passed are dirty rascist KKK members! :p
All kidding aside, this is a poor excuse to regulate dress in our country. Honestly, I find nothing wrong with the way jeans hang really low, because most people i.e. young blacks who started the trend DON'T do it. Instead, like in your picture, Skin, it's white males who have caught onto the trend in order to be "stylin' and profilin" :p
Those who do mostly have really baggy shirts over the jeans.
My school is trying to bring in uniforms because "the baggy clothing may be concealed with weaponry."
Uh huh. Why don't you just say that you're accusing young blacks of being gangster/thug etc.
In fact, maybe my school should do something about all the conservative people who write "**** all N*****" etc before they attempt to work on something so idiotic as regulating dress for fear of concealed weapons.
You just said yourself most young black people do not wear clothes that way... so why would your school be accusing them of that? Don't you mean they are accusing white people of being thugs?
Originally posted by ZBomber
You just said yourself most young black people do not wear clothes that way... so why would your school be accusing them of that? Don't you mean they are accusing white people of being thugs?
He was talking to skin about how in the pictures it's young white males that are catching into this "fashion design".
exactly. It's the idea of government mandated dress codes, it disgusts me. North Korea anyone?Both our countries have HAD mandated dress codes for centuries: People have to wear clothes in public. They can't run around naked. That's a dress code. An extreme one I'll grant you, but I'll ask again, where do we draw the line? I draw the line at looking at someone's underpants. Ewww. Pants. :(
Don't for one moment think that this is anything new, nor anything fascist.
This is not about lack of dress. If people were sagging their pants and not wearing underwear it'd be lack of dress.Of course it's about lack of dress, it's about RELATIVE lack of dress. Not COMPLETE lack of dress.
A man wanders around in public naked, that's obscene. A man wanders around in public naked except for a fig-leaf covering his meat and two-veg... that's STILL OBSCENE. There comes a point where obscene lack of dress becomes socially acceptable dress.
My school is trying to bring in uniforms because "the baggy clothing may be concealed with weaponry."
Uh huh. Why don't you just say that you're accusing young blacks of being gangster/thug etc.Mmkay, this is another important point: Baggy clothing IS used to conceal weaponry. Weaponry cannot be concealed under tight clothing. Bulges.
I wish people would stop trying to make everything a racial issue, especially when schoolyard maimings, stabbings, shootings and killings are so unacceptably prevalent.
And it IS important to remember that some young white people are thugs, some young black people are thugs, some young hispanic people are thugs, some young asian people are thugs. And still more young people from each of those ethnic groups turn a blind eye to the thuggery perpetrated by members of their own race. Don't be so rabidly liberal that you blind yourself to this simple fact.
Why cover underwear? Nowadays, there's social groups in which certain brands of underwear are considered fashion statements, and wearing them even adds to your reputation. People should start to realise, that in this century, underwear is not only used to cover up private parts.
Why cover underwear?Because that's what it's for. Under-wear. You wear underpants under your clothing. It is the layer of clothing that keeps your genital moisture away from your outer-layer, and thus away from the perceptive radius of other people. It's all in the name, once more for those at the back: UNDERwear. The only other purpose for underwear traditionally has been sexual in nature, (lacey black underwear, phwoaaarrr) and that too should be restricted to nightclubs or the bedroom... Although I'm not complaining about female underwear-showage. :D
in this century, underwear is not only used to cover up private parts.No, apparently it's for making a biting social statement with. It's for fighting evil evil social stereotypes with. It's for- oh heck, who am I trying to kid. Letting your pants flap around in the breeze for all to see is just pathetically stupid. It serves no purpose except to reveal shallow, fashion-obsessed cretins for what they are. It's unsanitary in appearance, scruffy and generally socially unacceptable. Any tax on those that sling their trousers low enough to reveal their croissant-coverings is a GOOD THING.
Frankly I think the penalty for being such an incontrivertable moron, should be death.
You don't have to like the clothing style to accept it. You just have to accept that everyone have their own styles and opinions within clothing.
Myself, I think sagging looks silly. But do I want to ban it? No. I think people should dress like they want.
"I don't like what you say, but I'd die to defend your right to say it". Dunno who said that, but it was well said. Why doesn't the same go for how people can dress?
It's not really a hygena thing, because as coupes said, obligatory gloves has a hygena benefit far higher than banning sagging.
Anyone else think of flashdance? THat kevin bacon film where they banned Dancing because it was lewd and a bad influence on kids. Or when they tried to ban elvis's dance routines? Or when they were burning comic books in the 60s? Or when hippies with long hair used to get beaten up?
I really thought humanity should have evolved past this stage in today's world. Sigh.
The only positive is that that democrat politician in the article seemed to "get it" and managed to make all the sensible points about what an idiotic waste of time and money this was... shame no one listened to him...