low pants


Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Heard about this on the radio last night lying in bed... it made me laff.

For christ's sake – the time & effort spent debating this bill couldn't have been put to better means?

The lunatics are in charge of the asylum...
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
I don't know that passing a law and involving the police is the best way. Where are the parents allowing their children to dress this way. Parents need to be parents and encourage the proper attire. I see this all the time on the MBTA. Never quite that much underwear on a guy though. It seems to be more the ladies, with the skimpy Victoria Secret showing. Sadly there was a young lady walking into our church, her white lacy was showing. My wife thought is was very unbecoming to be dressed that way for church. She said that she was almost tempted to say something. :eek:
 

emw

macrumors G4
Aug 2, 2004
11,177
0
Yes, but in Virginia it's apparently no big deal to take pictures of the underwear of someone who isn't showing it.
 

emw

macrumors G4
Aug 2, 2004
11,177
0
Just so we're straight on the facts - assuming this bill is passed and signed by the governor, it will be a finable offense for people to display their underwear in public (presumably, they will have pants on at the time), yet will be okay to display things like Victoria Secret ads on public buses, wear thong swimwear at the beach, wear short shorts, etc.?

Talk about getting your underwear in a bunch...
 

Drgnhntr

macrumors regular
Nov 4, 2004
101
0
San Diego
I think this is a good idea. I would think politicians could be using their time for other pressing matters, but that is a different discussion.

I agree that parents should be the ones making sure their kids look decent and respectable, but some/most aren't. I do not believe that wearing your pants around your knees is a fashion statement. I have seen young men/kids wearing their pants so low you can see the entire length of their boxer shorts. In my experience this "fashion trend" is associated with gangs and I don't think that should be tolerated by parents or society. Why shouldn't they pass a law about it?
 

xsedrinam

macrumors 601
Oct 21, 2004
4,348
1
Drgnhntr said:
I think this is a good idea. Why shouldn't they pass a law about it?
Because history has shown that attempts to legalize morality (especially grey areas) leads to oppression. It's a separtion of Shorts and State kinda thing ;)
X
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,817
37
Andover, MA
In order to avoid possibly violating the law, I can only assume those in affected areas will avoid underwear entirely.
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Drgnhntr said:
In my experience this "fashion trend" is associated with gangs and I don't think that should be tolerated by parents or society. Why shouldn't they pass a law about it?
In my experience, fraud, corruption and corporate manslaughter are associated with suits and ties.

Do you think we should ban those too?
 

Drgnhntr

macrumors regular
Nov 4, 2004
101
0
San Diego
mactastic said:
Well, there is that pesky 1st amendment issue...
Not everything is protected by 1st amendment. Verbal threats of violence or terrorism are taken very seriously, and you can't be nude in public places. Freedom of speech gives way to public safety as well as to indecency.

xsedrinam said:
Because history has shown that attempts to legalize morality (especially grey areas) leads to oppression. It's a separation of Shorts and State kinda thing
I can see how this comes off as legalizing morality, but there is nothing stopping anyone from going out, jogging, etc. in tight fitting low cut shorts and shirts. I see it all the time. It does not bother me when people dress for what they are doing. I think that when you wear your pants around your knees, or with one pant leg up one down, you are very much making a statement. That statement is that you are emulating or are part of a "gangster" style or way of life. I believe that that promotes violence and an atmosphere of fear and hate. I am not offended by these people as much as I am frightened by them.

I don't see the oppression in this instance. I think that if people wore their pants correctly they would be less oppressed.
 

Drgnhntr

macrumors regular
Nov 4, 2004
101
0
San Diego
Blue Velvet said:
In my experience, fraud, corruption and corporate manslaughter are associated with suits and ties.

Do you think we should ban those too?
Maybe when the guys with the red ties start killing the guys in blue ties...

Clothes can be very dangerous. If a person wearing one pant leg up or pants down, certain shoes, hat etc. bumps into another person wearing different combination of these thing they will beat eachother to a bloody pulp without having ever said a word.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Drgnhntr said:
Not everything is protected by 1st amendment. Verbal threats of violence or terrorism are taken very seriously, and you can't be nude in public places. Freedom of speech gives way to public safety as well as to indecency.
But the 1st amendment protection is quite broad, requiring a very high hurdle to curtail. Baggy pants are in no way a threat of violence or of terrorism. And if you can wear thong bikinis on the beach, how can you say that an exposed thong underwear is somehow indecent?

Should SI's swimsuit issue be deemed pornography?
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Drgnhntr said:
Clothes can be very dangerous. If a person wearing one pant leg up or pants down, certain shoes, hat etc. bumps into another person wearing different combination of these thing they will beat eachother to a bloody pulp without having ever said a word.
Then those people are morons and deserve to beat the crap out of each other.
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
Drgnhntr said:
Not everything is protected by 1st amendment. Verbal threats of violence or terrorism are taken very seriously, and you can't be nude in public places. Freedom of speech gives way to public safety as well as to indecency.



I can see how this comes off as legalizing morality, but there is nothing stopping anyone from going out, jogging, etc. in tight fitting low cut shorts and shirts. I see it all the time. It does not bother me when people dress for what they are doing. I think that when you wear your pants around your knees, or with one pant leg up one down, you are very much making a statement. That statement is that you are emulating or are part of a "gangster" style or way of life. I believe that that promotes violence and an atmosphere of fear and hate. I am not offended by these people as much as I am frightened by them.

I don't see the oppression in this instance. I think that if people wore their pants correctly they would be less oppressed.

i disagree with pretty much your entire argument, if anybody is threathened because they happen to spy a bit of underwear coming out of some girl's pants in the subway, then they need counseling.
but the point here is not about gangs at all.
they didn't outlaw gang-related attire. They outlawed the underwear showing up because it's "indecent" and doesn't fit the tastes of conservative christian fashion police.
it's just another proof of how entangled in bigotry and hypocrisy this country (or at least large parts of it) has gotten, and another step towards the taliban society that about half of this country unwittingly advocates.

it's getting better everyday...
 

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,364
1
wdlove said:
...Where are the parents allowing their children to dress this way. Parents need to be parents and encourage the proper attire...
Drgnhntr said:
..I agree that parents should be the ones making sure their kids look decent and respectable, but some/most aren't...
Reminds me of the old 'joke' that while Jesus would be turned away from a restaurant with no collar, tie and wearing sandals that nice well turned out Adolf Hitler would be welcomed.
 

OutThere

macrumors 603
Original poster
Dec 19, 2002
5,730
0
NYC
Following this interesting bit of legislation the UK might as well go ahead and ban chavs — some would agree that that would accomplish more than fining for showing your pants. :D

http://www.chavscum.co.uk
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
mpw said:
Reminds me of the old 'joke' that while Jesus would be turned away from a restaurant with no collar, tie and wearing sandals that nice well turned out Adolf Hitler would be welcomed.
A teenager with really long hair asks his Dad if he can borrow the car. Dad says, "No, not until you cut your hair."

"Why?" the kid asks indignantly. "Jesus had long hair!"

"Yeah he sure did," his father replies. "But he walked everywhere he went."

Anyway... I don't think baggy pants ought to be illegal unless skin shows when you bend over. I don't know about where you live, but around here, every appliance repairman would be in jail.

I suppose we have the MacRumors Gods to thank for giving the denizens of the political forum a crack at this one.