Sagging Pants and the Law

[Paisley]

This is from the web site Manolo for the Men:

Breeching the Peace
August 31st, 2007.
By Izzy


Having deplored low-hanging pants before, Izzy was happy to see that communities are taking action to end the uncivil plague. Pushed to extreme measures, municipalities have criminalized the attire, which is all-too-appropriate given that the style originated in prison, where belts are prohibited. In attempt to get around free-expression Constitutional claims, the laws are aimed at prohibiting public indecency.

The New York Times‘ story taught Izzy something new:

Not since the zoot suit has a style been greeted with such strong disapproval. The exaggerated boxy long coat and tight-cuffed pants, started in the 1930s, was the emblematic style of a subculture of young urban minorities. It was viewed as unpatriotic and flouted a fabric conservation order during World War II. The clothing was at the center of what were called Zoot Suit Riots in Los Angeles, racially motivated beatings of Hispanic youths by sailors. The youths were stripped of their garments, which were burned in the street.​

Although Izzy would never encourage a riot, he would like to see a peaceful march that chants ‚ÄúDo not share / derriere / We can see your underwear!‚Äù And of course the placards would read ‚ÄúUp with pants!‚Äù​

 

[Smyat]

Idiot law, by idiots, regarding idiots. *sigh*.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Indecent? ugly, yes, but indecent? methinks not. How about banning all cleavage-showing tops? Methinks there'd be a riot.

bk

 

[Jovan]

I don't get why Izzy talks about himself in the third person all the time...

That aside, a law banning it? No. I think people in general just need a shot of common sense.

 

[Smyat]

Indecent? ugly, yes, but indecent? methinks not. How about banning all cleavage-showing tops? Methinks there'd be a riot.

I stand second to no man in admiring the undraped female figure divine, but I'd have trouble arguing against an ordinance for young ladies to quit showing off their thongs, lower back tats and fact that they shave. It's just cheap and repulsive by any standard except that of the gape-mouths they're trying to appeal to. I... well, I can't go any further into the discussion without getting ruder than this forum tolerates.

There's an old joke about a rock star who argued with his tailor about his pants - "I want them tight! Tight enough to show my sex!" The tailor riposted, "Sir, if they were any tighter they'd show your religion!"

 

[Smyat]

That aside, a law banning it? No. I think people in general just need a shot of common sense.

Oxymoron, Jo. Oxymoron.

 

[Twitch]

What a load of prejudiced rubbish.

 

[Bebop]

Men dressing as mental patients is quite entertaining. Especially when they are so serious about it and think it somehow makes them look tough. I think drool running out of their mouth would finish off the whole look quite nicely. I believe having too many tattoos comes from the same fashion gurus in prison.

You have to be mentally handicapped to want to have your pants down to the point of not being able to move comfortably or run but it certainly should not be illegal. Wear what you want. Entertain me.

 

[Big Man]

So what's new?

The more things change, the more they stay the same (who said that?).

"In the latter years of the Indian war our young men became more enamored of the Indian dress throughout, with the exception of the matchcoat. The drawers were laid aside and the leggins made longer, so as to reach the upper part of the thigh. The Indian breech clout was adopted. This was a piece of linen or cloth nearly a yard long, and eight or nine inches broad. This passed under the belt before and behind leaving the ends for flaps hanging before and behind over the belt. These flaps were sometimes ornamented with some coarse kind of embroidery work. To the same belts which secured the breech clout, strings which supported the long leggins were attached. When this belt, as was often the case, passed over the hunting shirt the upper part of the thighs and part of the hips were naked.

The young warrior instead of being abashed by this nudity was proud of his Indian like dress. In some few instances I have seen them go into places of public worship in this dress. Their appearance, however, did not add much to the devotion of the young ladies."

Joseph Doddridge wrote this in 1824. He was describing how the young men in the late 1780's and early 1790's had started dressing. Younger people have ALWAYS dressed in a manner that probably infuriated the heck out of the older generation. The current "trend" for youngsters to imitate the look of maggots and thugs is nothing new. Outlawing the "look" is stupid. What should be outlawed are the maggots who perpetuate this look by their habits and attitudes. What should be more disturbing than youngsters adopting this look, is why they would want to emulate degenerates in the first place. Then again, some of us here like the look of Dillinger and Capone - and they were degenerate criminals, murders and maggot thugs too. They just wore a spiffy three piece suite instead of baggy pants. [huh]

 

[Diamondback]

I've been hearing reports that a lot of LEO's oppose banning pants with crotch at knees, citing them as the one real equalizer they have in chasing down a suspect.

 

[dashiell]

There's a *law* about that? How odd! Admittedly, I'm not fond of being treated to a more intimate knowledge of individual style in undergarments (including brassieres) than necessary, but a *law*? Wouldn't that tend to make the style more strongly associated with whatever subculture popularized it, and wouldn't that subculture cling to it more strongly for that association?

more importantly, aren't there more urgent laws to make, and enforce?
[huh]

 

[Smyat]

Men dressing as mental patients is quite entertaining.

I can't recall who originated the comment - maybe William Safire - but he pointed out that the gangsta style makes the wearers look just like... toddlers.

 

[Diamondback]

more importantly, aren't there more urgent laws to make, and enforce?
[huh]

More emphasis on enforce than make, I hope? (Considering that there are so many on the books, the odds are we all break a couple every day, do we really need more?)

 

[Bebop]

This all reminds me of driving around San Francisco with an elderly aunt visiting from Argentina last year, we were stopped at a traffic light when a young guy crossed the street in front of us with his pants way low and his very colorful boxer shorts showing down to his crotch. My aunt, having heard so much about our homeless, gasped and said, "look at that poor homeless man. Someone should be kind enough to help him with his pants". Her bewildered look was almost childlike while I explained how this was a fashion trend in the U.S. lol

 

[Starius]

I was riding with 2 of my best friends into town one day and one of our stops was walmart. As we pull into the parking lot, one of my friends spots a guy wearing pants like that and says, "Look at that moron with his pants!"

Now, being the open minded guy that I am, I say, "Well, if he wants to wear em like that, why not?"

Then as he passes by the other friend says, "You can see his skid marks!"
And sure enough, his once-upon-a-time tidy whites had seen far better days. (Laughter ensued)
Upon seeing this I replied, "Okay, yeah... that's really dumb."

 

[mrbork]

There's a *law* about that? How odd! Admittedly, I'm not fond of being treated to a more intimate knowledge of individual style in undergarments (including brassieres) than necessary, but a *law*? Wouldn't that tend to make the style more strongly associated with whatever subculture popularized it, and wouldn't that subculture cling to it more strongly for that association?

more importantly, aren't there more urgent laws to make, and enforce?
[huh]

Clearly, some of our lawmakers are misguided. There are certainly more important matters at hand, yet some worry about matters as foolish as this. Maybe they should opt to issue fashion citations.lol

 

[dostacos]

well I love the idea of letting them sag all they want. I have seen too many videos of these bozos tripping on their own pants after a crime so I figure it is survival of the fittest sort of

 

[dashiell]

, "look at that poor homeless man. Someone should be kind enough to help him with his pants".

lol lol lol

What a kind-hearted lady! And what a great observation...

 

[Jovan]

Clearly, some of our lawmakers are misguided. There are certainly more important matters at hand, yet some worry about matters as foolish as this. Maybe they should opt to issue fashion citations.lol

Agreed. As are there more important matters than trying to limit who you can marry, etc. but that's for another thread.

 

[John in Covina]

The Essential Question

From what i understand the origin or the fashion comes from prison is used by the gangbangers, emulated by the rappers and hip hop artists and passed to the youth watching MTV.

The question is why would anyone care to emulated a dirtbag criminal in prison?

Talk about skewed values.