Saggy trouser banned
- Charlie
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:52 pm
- Location: Somerset, England
Saggy trouser banned
You may find this amusing:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread. ... 0618162734
"Louisiana mayor Carol Broussard has vowed to outlaw the wearing of sagging trousers. Is wearing them an 'act of indecent exposure'?
Delcambre town council unanimously passed a law earlier this week making it a crime to wear trousers that show underwear.
Offenders face a fine of US$500 (£254) as well risking up to six months in jail.
However, there are concerns that the law has racial overtones, as low-slung trousers are fashionable among hip hop fans."
Would it be OK to wear a saggy skirt?
Personally, I think they should make it a crime to wear trousers - period
Charlie
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread. ... 0618162734
"Louisiana mayor Carol Broussard has vowed to outlaw the wearing of sagging trousers. Is wearing them an 'act of indecent exposure'?
Delcambre town council unanimously passed a law earlier this week making it a crime to wear trousers that show underwear.
Offenders face a fine of US$500 (£254) as well risking up to six months in jail.
However, there are concerns that the law has racial overtones, as low-slung trousers are fashionable among hip hop fans."
Would it be OK to wear a saggy skirt?
Personally, I think they should make it a crime to wear trousers - period
Charlie
If I want to dress like a woman, I'll wear jeans.
-
- Active Member
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 6:07 pm
- Location: Kent, UK - closer to France than to London
An earlier report also said:
Delcambre Mayor Carol Broussard, earlier this week confirmed he will sign the proposal "to make wearing saggy trousers an act of indecent exposure", the BBC reports. He said: "If you expose your private parts, you'll get a fine." To absolutely clarify his position on the matter, he said of trouser low-riders: "They're better off taking the pants off and just wearing a dress."
From The Register
Delcambre Mayor Carol Broussard, earlier this week confirmed he will sign the proposal "to make wearing saggy trousers an act of indecent exposure", the BBC reports. He said: "If you expose your private parts, you'll get a fine." To absolutely clarify his position on the matter, he said of trouser low-riders: "They're better off taking the pants off and just wearing a dress."
From The Register
Topsy
Mostly Harmless
Mostly Harmless
Hideous 'fashion' item, they (saggy tr*users!) may be, but that 'law' smacks of "Human Rights Violation" - big style! They would have to sag one h*ll of a way to 'expose private parts'!
I'm afraid I get into trouble with my other half for bursting into laughter when I see folk wearing such scutty apparel. "They've every right to wear whatever they like!", she'll say, indignantly. "And I've every right to wear what I like!", is then met with, "Ah, but that's different!" Mmnn, spousal 'double standards', again!
I'm afraid I get into trouble with my other half for bursting into laughter when I see folk wearing such scutty apparel. "They've every right to wear whatever they like!", she'll say, indignantly. "And I've every right to wear what I like!", is then met with, "Ah, but that's different!" Mmnn, spousal 'double standards', again!
- crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 14431
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Well, if proper (albeit rather obsolete) etiquette is followed, men aren't supposed to wear hats inside anyway. If I recall correctly, a *very* modern exemption is made for "open spaces" in shopping malls which are supposed to "represent the outdoors" (you're still supposed to remove your hat in stores and restaurants), but that's a mod to the "rules" that can't be more than 50 years old because modern malls didn't exist before that.Bob wrote:When I was in the South, I saw a similar set of dress codes at the mall --- including no baseball caps worn backwards or sideways. Yes, these laws do have racial overtones.
As far as Jim Crow-like laws in the South go, I think it's high time that the old-liners accpet that they've been defeated. This is the 21st century after all, not the 19th.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
-
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:49 am
- Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Covered areas too
An exception is also made for a "covered area" that is exposed to the sky:
In the center of the Pentagon there is an open-to-the-sky space that is officially designated as a "covered area" so that uniformed personnel do not have to put their (hats) on when they cross that space.
Chris
In the center of the Pentagon there is an open-to-the-sky space that is officially designated as a "covered area" so that uniformed personnel do not have to put their (hats) on when they cross that space.
Chris
First off I absolutely loath this style of dress. But that is it. If I were to see a fellow pilot wearing them, I would not imediately think that his flying skills must stink, unlike some people would think if I showed up to fly in leggings, boots and T-shirt.
I think this law stinks of Iranian laws placed upon their people against "western style hair cuts, or short skirts on women"
I think this law is a GIGANTIC step back wards.
There should be no law placed on the way anyone chooses to dress as long as certain parts of the body are not directly exposed.
I do not think a guy should walk about in a pair of leggings with a penis sheath, that would be disgusting to me. But pants that fall past the underpants? Big deal, they look like slobs, I will not think less of them.
I think this law stinks of Iranian laws placed upon their people against "western style hair cuts, or short skirts on women"
I think this law is a GIGANTIC step back wards.
There should be no law placed on the way anyone chooses to dress as long as certain parts of the body are not directly exposed.
I do not think a guy should walk about in a pair of leggings with a penis sheath, that would be disgusting to me. But pants that fall past the underpants? Big deal, they look like slobs, I will not think less of them.
- WSmac
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:47 am
- Location: Northern California(North of the Bay Area, that is)
I'd say there would be no grounds for racial debates about this law.
I live on the West Coast and see young men of all races/ethnicities/etc. wearing... or barely wearing, their pants like this.
I have told at least one kid that he should think about wearing a skirt if his pants bothered him so much he had to wear them so low.
I live on the West Coast and see young men of all races/ethnicities/etc. wearing... or barely wearing, their pants like this.
I have told at least one kid that he should think about wearing a skirt if his pants bothered him so much he had to wear them so low.
WSmac
- crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 14431
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Gravity and the act of defying it.
Two words: "Gecko tape".sapphire wrote:If the droopy drawers droop that much, why don't they simply fall off?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6378230
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
- Skirt Chaser
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:28 pm
- Location: North America
I believed in Gecko Tape. I looked! Glad I did too, I just learned what geckos can't stick to.
"A crime to wear trousers that show underwear" puts emphasis on men with baggy styles. Really the underwear doesn't get much notice from me compared to when you see a seated woman with jeans so low that you can't help but notice her underwear doesn't go very high. You realize she must be feeling air back there so it is not likely an accidental exposure.
"A crime to wear trousers that show underwear" puts emphasis on men with baggy styles. Really the underwear doesn't get much notice from me compared to when you see a seated woman with jeans so low that you can't help but notice her underwear doesn't go very high. You realize she must be feeling air back there so it is not likely an accidental exposure.