Pull Your Pants Up

[Spider AL]

Myself, I think sagging looks silly. But do I want to ban it? No. I think people should dress like they want.

HOWEVER they want?

 

Then you advocate changing the law so that people can run around naked in public? That's what you're saying. You're saying that how we dress and WHETHER we dress is up to the individual entirely. And that's just asking for trouble.

 

I mean, I'd like to see certain people running around naked. The attractive, well-toned female people, not to put too fine a point on it. But I'm willing to sacrifice my dream of nudey buxom fun, because I know that if the law allowed pretty girlies to run around starkers, it'd have to allow fat old people to run around starkers too.

 

And then I'd have to put my eyes out.

 

Again.

 

Or when hippies with long hair used to get beaten up?

The good old days.

 

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...

Is this the same stupid democrat who tried to make this an issue of race, and accused the lawmakers of racism? Pfft.

[Rogue15]

hahaha that's great. yea saggy clothes annoy the hell out of me.....but that's only after being in basic for a few months....my gawsh, when i got out, i couldn't help but point and laugh at how ****ing sloppy people were! XD then i stopped tucking my t-shirt in my pants cause nobody else was.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Spider AL

HOWEVER they want?

 

Then you advocate changing the law so that people can run around naked in public? That's what you're saying.

No he's not, don't be a fool. What he's saying is (as long as they're wearing clothes) they should be allowed to wear what they want.

 

And for the record, a dress code isn't requiring clothes be worn, it is a code of approved dressing patterns, as in there are types of clothes you are not allowed to where.

Requiring clothing is not a dress code. As I said before, the requirement of clothing is out of safety, while you still can get sick from brushing against someone fully clothed, it's less likely than brushing the bits of a naked person, and when naked you're more prone to getting scratches and such that could allow diseases to spread. Plus sadly, idiots find nudity offensive.

[Spider AL]

No he's not, don't be a fool.

Yes Insanesith, he is. And I'm not "being a fool" FYI.

 

What he's saying is (as long as they're wearing clothes) they should be allowed to wear what they want.

I remarked in several earlier posts that a pair of underpants qualifies as "clothes", but it's still obscene to run around in public in NOTHING BUT a g-string now, isn't it.

 

Clothing can be obscenely revealing. This is not up for debate. You can't draw a line when obscenity is a subjective social standard. The majority believes that showing your underpants in public is obscene, and I agree with them.

 

And for the record, a dress code isn't requiring clothes be worn, it is a code of approved dressing patterns, as in there are types of clothes you are not allowed to where.

Requiring clothing is not a dress code.

I don't think you understand the term properly. A "dress-code" is just that, a code of dress. A set of rules governing what attire one must be wearing at given times and locations.

 

Dictionary.com defines as:

 

"A set of rules, as in a school, indicating the approved manner of dress"

 

So the social standard of not wearing too-few-clothes qualifies eminently as a dress code.

 

As I said before, the requirement of clothing is out of safety

That was pretty much nonsense though, wasn't it. Clothing evolved to provide warmth, not to provide bio-hazard security. Otherwise, we'd be wearing surgical facemasks, rubber gloves, underpants... and NOTHING ELSE.

 

Clothing = warmth and social dress-code.

 

Clothing != bio-hazard containment.

 

Plus sadly, idiots find nudity offensive.

I would certainly find public nudity offensive.

 

I guess you've just called me an idiot then. And I'm not going to further engage in a debate with someone who's becoming offensive on a personal level.

 

This will be my only reply to you in this thread.

[toms]

i have absolutely no problem with people walking around naked if they want to. Who cares? Who does it affect?

 

Its the same with the pants thing. I thin it looks daft (and i thought it went out of fashion years ago) but that doesn't mean people can't wear them if they want.

 

I'd rather they banned all the adidas tracksuits, white nike trainers & caps and burberry that all the chavs in the UK wear... but just because i hate it (or don't understand it) is no reason to ban it.

[Lady Jedi]

Well, guys look absolutely ridiculous with their pants so far down that they may as well just ditch them, and it's disgusting when girls where them low enough so that, whenever she bends over, the unsuspecting soul behind her gets a nasty view of her thong. But no matter what laws are passed about concerning this nonissue, people are still going to dress the way they want to, because they can. As long as they aren't showing anything that is part of the anatomy, then they think that it's fine.

 

Now just think back at some other fashion fads; what do they all have in common? They fade, that's what. Folks will pull their pants up when they darn well feel like it, no matter what the government's telling them to do about it.

 

Now, I'll admit that I've got a few pairs of jeans that sit a ways below the waistline, but that doesn't mean I don't make sure that everything that should be covered is covered. So, if people want to wear their pants really low, at least do it nicely and keep your undergarments covered. I think that 'under' is definately the key word here. I seems to me that it denotes something that should be worn underneath, rather than half in, half out.

 

As for the health issue, and nudity being offensive: Refer to Genesis. Yep, that's the Bible 'Genesis'. I understand if you don't aggree with it, but I think that it's the reason people wear clothes today. Before the sin was committed, humans weren't required to wear clothes; but after that, BAM! Ya gotta wear 'em.

 

Bottom Line: It's a silly law. I don't like the style; it seems ridiculous to me. But let nature take it's course and the doofuses will eventually pull up their pants the way their mothers taught, or rather, should have taught them to.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by toms

i have absolutely no problem with people walking around naked if they want to. Who cares? Who does it affect?

Well, y'know.. depends. Mister Long John could be affected. But then again.. yes, indeed, who cares?

 

 

Seriously, I don't care if i *see* a bit of thong or boxers or whatever. I even tend to like it if it appears to be decent. Of course it can look stupid, especially if it's going beneath the hips down to the knees, but i could name at least 879145687 'fashion-trends' which look worse than that.

And as for the hygienical aspect, hell, I'm (a) more concerned about people not washing their hands before and after they go to the toilet or the all sweaty dancing folk in a club and (b) after all it isn't me who takes a seat in the bus where who-knows-who-and-how sat before, only 'protected' by the thin fabric of my shorts. My behind is all right, because I wear my pants the right way.

 

Hey and Skinwalker, about the skidmarks.. why not teaching them how to proper wipe the ass?