I got this from Change.org. They ENCOURAGE SHARING. I am NOT PLAGARIZING.
MY QUESTION:Are they going to start making "Camel Toes" and "Whale Tales" illegal. (If you don't know what those are, please look them up.)
Two thoughtful posts yesterday - at Flawless Hustle and RaceWire - examine one of the newer additions to the criminalized-for-no-good-reason list: baggy pants.
Towns across the country have passed laws banning baggy pants, imposing fines and prison time on the offenders. In Pine Lawn, Missouri, the parents of young offenders could spend 90 days in jail. A proposed bill in Kentucky would fine offenders $1,000 for wearing pants below the waistline. These laws are misguided because they criminalize expression - anyone arguing that exposure of underwear is indecent exposure should work on amending indecent exposure laws rather than criminalizing a specific clothing style.
They're also wrong because they target an urban population and one that includes a large number of African-Americans. We tend to criminalize that which we don't understand, and we tend to make laws that increase contact between police and inner-city youth. Laws like this start the cycle that sucks too many people into a criminal justice system they don't need. A court date for baggy pants leads to a missed day at work and a continuance. Another court date, another missed day of work - or school. The case is finally wrapped up, with a fine and a brand new criminal record. A missed test or a lost job have serious consequences, and so does a record. Another infraction - maybe trespassing for hanging out a friend's public housing complex - and we have a repeat offender. It's no mystery how good people can get wrapped up in this system when we make laws like this.
Is it going to take a Supreme Court decision to end the baggy pants laws? Here's Michelle Chen at RaceWire:
Grown-ups have been fretting about what kids are wearing for generations. In the 1960s, black armbands worn in protest of the Vietnam War were banned, ultimately leading to a landmark Supreme Court ruling. During the 1990s, courts ruled that some bans on provocatively worded T-shirts and other controversial fashion flunked the constitutional test because they didn't serve a valid safety or disciplinary purpose.
And vadim at Flawless Hustle:
I've been living in this country for a long time and this logic - X is distasteful to me, so let's throw people who use/show/wear X in jail - is intuitive to too many people. Lucky or us, we have the Constitution, and we have the first amendment, which clearly allows for Americans to exercise their Freedom of Expression to, for example, wear clothes others might find distasteful. And we have the eighth amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," i.e. jailing/fining citizens for wearing clothes others might find objectionable.
The more litigants challenge these laws on Constitutional grounds, and the more activist judges overrule narrow-minded legislators, the better.
Well said.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
Yet another example of how our sweet little freedoms are being withdrawn ever so subtley drop by drop.
As for the pants poster, I don't know wether to laugh or sigh. I think I'll laugh, it'll make me feel better =D
Someone (I can't remember who), said on the radio a few days ago that all we have to do to stop the sagging pants fashion is for parents to start wearing them. Seeing Grandma is her sagging pants would put a kid back into tight Levi's pretty quick.
Really, there are so many actually important things that we should be spending our time and money on. Laws against sagging are ridiculous and probably racist, too.
Indecent exposure?
Playtex bras were advertised on the outside of clothing for years! Now you see women in underwear in commercials... no different than a woman wearing a bathing suit.
Before they go busting kids in baggy pants and boxer shorts... how 'bout they bust fat ass Joe plumber for showing his hairy crack every time he bends over. (now that's disgusting!)
Sagging is a trend that should have been busted by the fashion police years ago. I remember when my daughter was in 5th grade (back in the 90's) her teacher kept a hideous green belt in her desk and if any boy showed up in her classroom sagging, he had to pull his pants up Urkel style and wear the belt all day. The boys wore clothes that fit after that. (Teacher, Ms. Tracey, was a young, black, recent college grad.)
When you see this "style" worn every day in all kinds of weather, you wish there was a law about it. I don't know why women put up with their men (or boyfriends or sons) walking around like this. I don't know why mothers allow their boys to dress this way. It is just nasty. I don't want to see your man's drawers or butt crack! If he's underage, isn't some law being broken about having a minor's butt exposed?
Then there's the stupid extreme of wearing two pairs of boxers showing the top part of the first pair, nearly all of the second pair, and then the jeans come trailing along just below the butt. Why? What is being expressed? "I can't seem to buy ANYTHING that fits my scrawny ass," "I'm 'underprivileged' and have to wear hand-me-downs that still have the price tags on them," "I'm cruising for anal sex"? It's not a sexy look. It's not a look that says the person cares about himself.
The mentality of those who dress this way is equally charming. Perhaps the way to improve their whole out look is to make the style punishable. If these men and boys start dressing like responsible adults, then perhaps they'll begin acting that way.
I think they should all be rounded up and given the Ms. Tracey green belt punishment.
Liz: you know I'm one old fart who never played fashion police. So long as the "important" bits were given a nod to decency, I let it go. You and your brother had to grow up someday. And son-uv-a-gun... you did (well, pretty much).
I just don't think that we need to spend time and money on getting rid of this fashion. It's up to parents to decide what their children are allowed to wear and it's up to grown men, their wives or bosses, to decide what THEY can wear.
I'm pretty much a live and left live person. I don't particularly care what anyone does, however, there are limits. There are things I don't care to see, i.e. whale tales, camel toes and especially moose knuckles...besides I'm positive they are uncomfortable. Usually the people that have them, really shouldn't....really. I don't think all this needs to be illegal though. I have my own ways...for the boxers sticking out above pants that are barely on the butt defying the force of gravity (there is no way they can be on except perhaps by staple gun)...pants the guy; for plumber's butt, an ice cube or a lit cigarette butt. For a camel toe or moose knuckle, there's always aerobics, a bicycle ride, anything to get her moving to get things even more impacted.
Tammy b-That's too good. Ran out of his pants? HAHAHAHAHA!
Where are the guidelines for classroom attire? Parents, did you ever hear these words come out of your mother's mouth: "YOU'RE NOT LEAVING THIS HOUSE DRESSED LIKE THAT! GO BACK IN YOUR ROOM AND CHANGE, OR YOU'RE NOT GOING! "
In my high school there were very ridgid rules: Girls: No spaghetti straps unless a sweater or a jacket was worn to cover the shoulders. No jeans, slacks, or pants allowed in class. If the hemline of a girl's skirt/dress did not touch the floor when she stood on her knees, she was either sent home to change, or sent to the home economics room to have the hem taken down. Boys: No jeans AT ALL! Regular pants had to be worn and they must have beltloops WITH a belt. No T-shirts. No sleeveless shirts. Unless they were wearing a sweater, the upper garment must have had a collar...that was not flipped up to look cool, but turned down into its proper position.
Times are different. Fashion changes. My kid would suffer greatly by even THINKING of going out in public with his drawers exposed 6 or 7 inches below his waist.
But a fine and jail time? Not unless the situation can truly be labeled "indecent exposure". And of course, that's a sex crime.
Really, folks, this is just DUMB! So much self-righteousness and sanctimony wasted, just WASTED, on this. There MUST be something better they can spend it on.
Oh, by the way, thanks for the new terms. I won a swag buck while looking up camel toe!
glitter-graphics.com
I, personally can't stand the looks of them, but he is comfortable and clean, so I am satisfied.
Now if we could just stop the g-string undies going over the hips so high (you know tht girl is uncomfortable between those butt cheeks) I be happy.
IN fact, I wish they would just make jeans that fit a person. I get tired of hiking up my pants so you can't see my granny panties...but they don't make women's jeans in a size 3, long for adult women, I have to go to the teen department.
Saggy pants are no fashion statement. That crosses the line to provocativeness. And, it's particularly disgusting that it's frequently minors that dress like that. Are they attempting to attract pedophiles?
Incidentally, I've noticed that the youngsters leave their home with their pants up where they're supposed to be and then intentionally let them down once they've gotten far enough from home so that their parents don't see what they're doing.
Maybe they like the "nasty" feeling that comes with it.
We might want to be careful with changing the indecent exposure laws. In this case, it's not what can be seen; rather, it's the suggestiveness of the clothing appearing to be falling off of the body. (Hm, maybe he'll be naked at any time now.) That's just plain sick.
<font size="2">Glitter Graphics & Comments</font> for sharing
I guess on one hand folks can say the boys took that style from prisoners so let them see the lifestyle they are really saying they want. But, really! Is it worth putting them in jail for?
How is it okay for this but for kids on the streets trying to fit in, we go crazy over boxers showing? As for the "toe" issues, I just know they are not comfortable and they must have some kind of yeast infection from the dampness that must be going on in there so she will get punished on her own!!
I doubt the kids know from where the style originated, they just see the other kids so they do it. I am amazed how the pants do stay up. I saw a girl the other day wearing the style and I think it looks stupid on both sexes.
Keep taking away our freedoms and soon we will all be wearing, driving, eating, singing, dancing, ect... the same exact things. Who wants that?
Provactiveness? Have you been to the beach recently?
when it is fine in our society for young girls (or old women) to wear bikinis-Terry
EXACTLY. This is NOT a legal issue, it's a societal issue for parents, employers, schools, etc. to deal with.
I am amazed how the pants do stay up-Bunny B.
They wear belts at the point where they want them to stay "up" at.
Keep taking away our freedoms and soon we will all be wearing, driving, eating, singing, dancing, ect... the same exact things. Who wants that? -Bunny B.
Ahh, but these are generrally poor, urban/inner citry, black teens. THEY don't deserve rights, do they? However, if you try to put an upperclass (Paris Hilton) in jail for wearing a miniskirt with NO undies and flashing the WHOLE world...well we just can't have that!
Dorothy H-At this point, I believe they are still only "considering" making this a law.
At Hershey park you can't leave the water area in a bikini top if your top draws attention. In many stores they won't service you if you aren't wearing shoes or a shirt. Let the parents and business owners make the rules and keep the lawmakers out of it. Really, if the above two don't care what business is it of the government to say no?