Fashion Police To Fine Wearers of Low-Slung Pants?

[Brown]

From Yahoo and AP (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040423/ap_on_fe_st/pants_too_low_2):Louisiana May Ban Low-Slung Pants

People who wear low-slung pants that expose skin or "intimate clothing" would face a fine of up to $500 and possible jail time under a bill filed by a Jefferson Parish lawmaker.

State Rep. Derrick Shepherd said he filed the bill because he was tired of catching glimpses of boxer shorts and G-strings over the lowered belt lines of young adults.There are some good quotes in the story from the ACLU, but the best quote comes from Rep. Shepherd: "The community's outraged. And if parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brown
From Yahoo and AP (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040423/ap_on_fe_st/pants_too_low_2):There are some good quotes in the story from the ACLU, but the best quote comes from Rep. Shepherd: "The community's outraged. And if parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law."

Oh, how could you not quote Joe Cook from the ACLU:

"I can think of a lot of workers, plumbers, who are working and expose their buttocks ..."

:dl:

a $500 fine for a$$ crack...

[Dorian Gray]

The home of Mardi Gras, where women show off their tits for a string of beads, is banning low slung pants?
:i: :id:

[headscratcher4]

I am readng a book called Reading Lolita in Terhan, by an Iranian who was teaching American Lit in Iran just after the Revolution. THis sounds like the decrees that the Iranian revolutionaries imposed to protect morality. I wonder if this state legislator knows how alike he and the Ayatollah may be?

[varwoche]

I hope and expect if this becomes law there will be massive protests ... the million crack march?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by varwoche
I hope and expect if this becomes law there will be massive protests ... the million crack march?

Hey, just say no to crack!

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't know.. At the least, there might be some licensing put in place.. There are some ugly cracks being exposed out there...

[roger]

How is this really any different from extant laws about not bearing breasts, etc., in public?

Basically the Rep. is not at the cutting edge of what is socially accepted for revealing skin, that's all.

If we compare this Rep. to the Ayatollah, don't we need to compare our state's laws to the Ayatollah as well?

In case it is not clear, I am not in favor of this law, but don't find it any more ridiculous or laughable than current laws on going topless or whatever.

[headscratcher4]

You make an interesting argument.

I think I would diferentiate in this way. Going "topless" is not, for the most part acceptable in the U.S. -- historically, or legally (there are laws -right, wrong and/or stupid -- against it).

Wearing low slung pants is currently done. THere are no laws on the books about it. In short, this guy is seeking to legislatively ban something that people already do...my analogy with Iran, in the context of the book I am reading...was that the rulers of Iran essentially took away "rights" from women. In other words, women were forced to wear the veil, travel with a male family member etc. They imposed these laws on a state (for all of its problems under the Shah) that had liberated women (at least as far as dress was concerned). Anyway, whenever you take away a right or priviledge that is broadly exersized -- for example and indivuals right to choose the kind of pants they wear -- it strikes me as very totalitarian/authoritarian and thus dangerous.

Rather than ask why not allow topless, while we're at it. WHy not ask: why stop at low cut pants? Do you think they are going to legislate against cheerleader costumes at the Super-dome? Are they not as bad? Why?

Anyway, I hope we can agree that this is a stupid idea....

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
You make an interesting argument.

I think I would diferentiate in this way. Going "topless" is not, for the most part acceptable in the U.S. -- historically, or legally (there are laws -right, wrong and/or stupid -- against it).

Wearing low slung pants is currently done. THere are no laws on the books about it. In short, this guy is seeking to legislatively ban something that people already do...my analogy with Iran, in the context of the book I am reading...was that the rulers of Iran essentially took away "rights" from women. In other words, women were forced to wear the veil, travel with a male family member etc. They imposed these laws on a state (for all of its problems under the Shah) that had liberated women (at least as far as dress was concerned). Anyway, whenever you take away a right or priviledge that is broadly exersized -- for example and indivuals right to choose the kind of pants they wear -- it strikes me as very totalitarian/authoritarian and thus dangerous.

Rather than ask why not allow topless, while we're at it. WHy not ask: why stop at low cut pants? Do you think they are going to legislate against cheerleader costumes at the Super-dome? Are they not as bad? Why?

Anyway, I hope we can agree that this is a stupid idea....

I say everyone should walk around nude as a sign of protest.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I say everyone should walk around nude as a sign of protest.

I know I will....:D

[Girl 6]

{sigh}

This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women...:rolleyes:

I know that sounds like a banal statement. It is. I just had to say it, though. :D

Sometimes, you have to wonder why people waste all of their energy ON THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER. (say that in a God-like voice, it helps)

G6

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Girl 6
{sigh}

This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women...:rolleyes:

I know that sounds like a banal statement. It is. I just had to say it, though. :D

Sometimes, you have to wonder why people waste all of their energy ON THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER. (say that in a God-like voice, it helps)

G6

Does that mean you will join our protest and walk around nude?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Girl 6
{sigh}

This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women...:rolleyes:


Isn't it a way for lawmakers to control people in general? Does this law only apply to women?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony


Isn't it a way for lawmakers to control people in general? Does this law only apply to women?

Not in principle, because supposedly he hates boxers, too. But seriously, does any really consider boxers to be "intimate" clothing?

If that is the case, anyone who's undies are showing could be arrested. Whoops, your bra strap is showing! $500!

[Brown]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Oh, how could you not quote Joe Cook from the ACLU:

"I can think of a lot of workers, plumbers, who are working and expose their buttocks ..."Yeah, I know. I was in a quandry about quoting the plumber line (very low-brow, but good for a laugh) or the "there should be a law" line (which is just oozing with irony and hypocrisy).Originally posted by Girl 6
This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women...Yes, I think it is. There's almost certainly a double standard applied in regard to immodesty. If men see a guy walking around with his undershorts showing, they usually think, "That dumb ass doesn't know enough to pull up his pants or tuck in his shirt. What a moron." But if they see a woman walking around with her underwear showing, a lot of men think, "She's being a tease. What a slut." Legislators tend to be far more concerned with women being sluts than with men being dumb asses.

[RCNelson]

Girl 6:
Sometimes, you have to wonder why people waste all of their energy ON THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER. (say that in a God-like voice, it helps)
Maybe it's because the things that DO matter are too scary to deal with.

[bignickel]

One thing that struck me as interesting:

They are banning low slung pants because an observer can see the top of the ass.

Now, since there are evidently no problems for Louisiana in observers seeing the arm, leg, foot, hand, head, etc, that must mean that the Louisiana legislator believes that the ass has become eroticized.

And he is proposing legistlation that NO PART of the eroticized body part can be seen.

If taken to the next logical step -> would this not also be used to prosecute women who showed the tops of a body part even more eroticized? ie the breasts

This is basically step one in the process of making cleavage illegal.

[Reginald]

Save the Whale..........



....................tail.

[Bikewer]

Around here we get TV commercials for "MR. Happy Crack!"

If that's not enough, there's the jingle to go with it:

"A dry crack is a happy crack!"

Makes me wince...

Personally, I think the guy's got a point. I'm in police work at a big university, and I do bike patrol. With the recent warm weather letting the juicy coeds get into thier new miniskirts and halter-tops, it's all I can do to keep from riding into an oak tree.

[bignickel]

UMSL? or Wash U?

I either should drop by, or not, depending on what I might see, or whether I want a bicycle in the crotch.

[Bikewer]

Wash U....And I'm usually very careful; I havn't hit anyone lately.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by roger
How is this really any different from extant laws about not bearing breasts, etc., in public. . .

There is the fact that he's talking about outlawing the exposure of skin that you can see any day at the beach, as for the crack problem - it's actually illegal in most jurisdictions to even accidentally expose your buttcrack to the public. Most cops just aren't going to waste their time arresting people for it. Add in that he'll have to decide exactly what constitutes "intimate apparel" (other jurisdictions have tried to ban any underwear that would incite lust and run into problems when the courts asked them to specify what was and was not permissable) and how much exposure is criminal and you've got a lot of problems for fair enforcement.

Not to mention that as of right now it's not illegal to run around in your underwear as long as the appropriate parts are covered.

This whole law is all about the fact that these old guys can't stand that the younger people don't wish to adhere to the same sorts of rules they feel appropriate now that their old. They were the same way when they were younger, they just won't admit it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Not in principle, because supposedly he hates boxers, too. But seriously, does any really consider boxers to be "intimate" clothing?

If that is the case, anyone who's undies are showing could be arrested. Whoops, your bra strap is showing! $500!

Can't wait to see the legalised definition of showing too much crack...

Perhaps as a rider (he he) they should make it compulsory to tuck your vest into your underwear?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Agammamon
..,snip...

This whole law is all about the fact that these old guys can't stand that the younger people don't wish to adhere to the same sorts of rules they feel appropriate now that their old. They were the same way when they were younger, they just won't admit it.

Perhaps this is the swimwear they'd want everyone to wear:

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Victorians/swimearlyvics400new.jpg

[Darat]

Originally posted by Girl 6
{sigh}

This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women...:rolleyes:

I know that sounds like a banal statement. It is. I just had to say it, though. :D

Sometimes, you have to wonder why people waste all of their energy ON THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER. (say that in a God-like voice, it helps)

G6

Hasn't she got a lovely sigh?

Now dear don't go troubling your pretty little head with these man-folk considerations. We are talking about things that are not any business of a lady.

Darat decides to leave planet…



Poor Rep. Shepherd has been all of a tizzy. You see all these young men have been going round showing him their pretty little cracks and it's all been too much for him. When he was young you had to pay for such delights!

[Virgil]

I'm glad to see all other crime as been eliminated so that the police can focus on this issue with their free time.


Virgil

[hgc]

Originally posted by bignickel
One thing that struck me as interesting:

They are banning low slung pants because an observer can see the top of the ass.

Now, since there are evidently no problems for Louisiana in observers seeing the arm, leg, foot, hand, head, etc, that must mean that the Louisiana legislator believes that the ass has become eroticized.

And he is proposing legistlation that NO PART of the eroticized body part can be seen.

If taken to the next logical step -> would this not also be used to prosecute women who showed the tops of a body part even more eroticized? ie the breasts

This is basically step one in the process of making cleavage illegal. So if this idiot was a repressed foot fetishist, he'd propose a law banning sandals?

[Bikewer]

Well, at least I can be assured that women who wear skin-tight leather, studded collars, and 6" heels won't be unduly harrassed by the legislature.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by bignickel

This is basically step one in the process of making cleavage illegal.

If the public display of breasts becomes illegal, mardi gras will die on the spot. There is no way that will happen.

[Bikewer]

Here in somewhat puritanical St. Louis, we have a Mardi Gras celebration of sorts as well.

This is in the old Soulard commercial district. Rest assured that breast-baring is a citeable offense! This may explain why it's strictly a local celebration. That and the fact that February is cold as hell in St. Louis.

[Samus]

I'm walking around the office with no pants on today just to protest this.

...why no, I don't live in Louisiana...should that matter?