Fashion Police To Fine Wearers of Low-Slung Pants?

Brown · 23rd April 2004, 08:52 AM

Quote:

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 · 23rd April 2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brown
From Yahoo and AP: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 ..."

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

Dorian Gray · 23rd April 2004, 09:48 AM

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

headscratcher4 · 23rd April 2004, 10:00 AM

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 · 23rd April 2004, 10:08 AM

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

Segnosaur · 23rd April 2004, 12:18 PM

Quote:

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 · 23rd April 2004, 12:26 PM

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 · 23rd April 2004, 12:31 PM

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 · 23rd April 2004, 12:39 PM

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 · 23rd April 2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

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 · 23rd April 2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron

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

I know I will....

Girl 6 · 23rd April 2004, 12:55 PM

{sigh}

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

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

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 · 23rd April 2004, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Girl 6
{sigh}

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

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

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 · 23rd April 2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Girl 6
{sigh}

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

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

pgwenthold · 23rd April 2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

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 · 23rd April 2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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 · 23rd April 2004, 02:25 PM

Quote:

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 · 23rd April 2004, 02:32 PM

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 · 23rd April 2004, 03:11 PM

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

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

Bikewer · 23rd April 2004, 05:45 PM

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 · 23rd April 2004, 05:49 PM

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 · 23rd April 2004, 06:31 PM

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

Agammamon · 26th April 2004, 03:24 AM

Quote:

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 · 26th April 2004, 04:45 AM

Quote:

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 · 26th April 2004, 04:48 AM

Quote:

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:

Darat · 26th April 2004, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Girl 6
{sigh}

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

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

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 · 26th April 2004, 05:55 AM

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 · 26th April 2004, 06:43 AM

Quote:

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 · 26th April 2004, 06:47 AM

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 · 26th April 2004, 07:23 AM

Quote:

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 · 26th April 2004, 08:35 AM

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 · 26th April 2004, 09:09 AM

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?

23rd April 2004, 08:52 AM	#1
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,145	Fashion Police To Fine Wearers of Low-Slung Pants? From Yahoo and AP: Quote: 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."
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

23rd April 2004, 09:03 AM	#2
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,066	Re: Fashion Police To Fine Wearers of Low-Slung Pants? Quote: Originally posted by Brown From Yahoo and AP: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 ..." a $500 fine for a$$ crack...
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

23rd April 2004, 10:00 AM	#4
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	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?
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

23rd April 2004, 10:08 AM	#5
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,228	I hope and expect if this becomes law there will be massive protests ... the million crack march?
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

23rd April 2004, 12:18 PM	#6
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Quote: 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!
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

23rd April 2004, 09:48 AM	#3
Dorian Gray Hypocrisy Detector Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 20,193	The home of Mardi Gras, where women show off their tits for a string of beads, is banning low slung pants?

23rd April 2004, 12:26 PM	#7
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	I don't know.. At the least, there might be some licensing put in place.. There are some ugly cracks being exposed out there...
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

23rd April 2004, 12:31 PM	#8
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	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.

23rd April 2004, 12:39 PM	#9
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	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....
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

23rd April 2004, 12:42 PM	#10
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: 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.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

23rd April 2004, 12:44 PM	#11
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Quote: Originally posted by Grammatron I say everyone should walk around nude as a sign of protest. I know I will....
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

23rd April 2004, 12:55 PM	#12
Girl 6 Voice of Reason Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,500	{sigh} This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women... I know that sounds like a banal statement. It is. I just had to say it, though. 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
Girl 6 Voice of Reason Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,500	__________________ "Where is the man who has the power and skill to stem the torrent of a woman's will?" The Skeptical Community: You will never believe what is going on here!

23rd April 2004, 12:56 PM	#13
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by Girl 6 {sigh} This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women... I know that sounds like a banal statement. It is. I just had to say it, though. 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?
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!

23rd April 2004, 01:00 PM	#14
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,753	Quote: Originally posted by Girl 6 {sigh} This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women... Isn't it a way for lawmakers to control people in general? Does this law only apply to women?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

23rd April 2004, 01:18 PM	#15
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,066	Quote: 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!
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

23rd April 2004, 01:49 PM	#16
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,145	Re: Re: Fashion Police To Fine Wearers of Low-Slung Pants? Quote: 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). Quote: 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.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

23rd April 2004, 02:25 PM	#17
RCNelson Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 397	Quote: 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.
RCNelson Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 397	__________________ A point in every direction is the same as no point at all

23rd April 2004, 02:32 PM	#18
bignickel Mad Mod Poet God Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,724	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.
	__________________ "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

23rd April 2004, 03:11 PM	#19
Reginald Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,641	Save the Whale.......... ....................tail.
	__________________ No one's in the dark, no one's in the corner and no one's in the wardrobe just waiting to pounce.

23rd April 2004, 05:45 PM	#20
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	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.

23rd April 2004, 05:49 PM	#21
bignickel Mad Mod Poet God Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,724	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.
	__________________ "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

23rd April 2004, 06:31 PM	#22
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	Wash U....And I'm usually very careful; I havn't hit anyone lately.

26th April 2004, 03:24 AM	#23
Agammamon Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,385	Quote: 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.
	__________________ It will be a great day when the US Air Force has all the bombs it needs and the NEA has to hold a bake sale in order to pay its lobbyists.

26th April 2004, 04:45 AM	#24
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Quote: 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?

26th April 2004, 04:48 AM	#25
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Quote: 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:

26th April 2004, 04:56 AM	#26
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Quote: Originally posted by Girl 6 {sigh} This is yet another attempt by lawmakers to control women... I know that sounds like a banal statement. It is. I just had to say it, though. 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!

26th April 2004, 05:55 AM	#27
Virgil Muse Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 682	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
Virgil Muse Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 682

26th April 2004, 06:43 AM	#28
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,987	Quote: 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?
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

26th April 2004, 06:47 AM	#29
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	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.

26th April 2004, 07:23 AM	#30
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: 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.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

26th April 2004, 08:35 AM	#31
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	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.

26th April 2004, 09:09 AM	#32
Samus space hunter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,003	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?
Samus space hunter Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,003