Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
Glad I did too, I just learned what geckos can't stick to. 