TK-8252 Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 It's not just for guys. Have you seen how girls too are wearing their pants these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Irrelevant societal issue that should not even have been brought up and wasted time (and money) upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Its obscene. One's underwear should not be made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 13, 2005 Author Share Posted February 13, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.24edface7c76d897543b1e05da64a97d.gif)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.