Say Hello to America’s Fashion Police

Date: September 17, 2007

Starting fifteen or so years ago, baggy pants really came into style in the United States. And, as one might expect from baggy pants, they’re also saggy pants. This used to prove to be a source of great amusement for my mother and myself, as we watched dozens of “gantsta cool” young men hobble around, with their pants sagging past the edge of their boxers, sometimes even to the middle of their backside or beyond. Believe me, it’s very comical to watch an already awkward teenager try to smoothly yank up his breeches to avoid total embarrassment. Sadly, this bad taste is beginning to be outlawed. Yes, outlawed. Take a look.

Proposals to ban saggy pants are starting to ride up in several places. At the extreme end, wearing pants low enough to show boxers or bare buttocks in one small Louisiana town means six months in jail and a $500 fine. A crackdown also is being pushed in Atlanta. And in Trenton, getting caught with your pants down may soon result in not only a fine, but a city worker assessing where your life is headed.

“Are they employed? Do they have a high school diploma? It’s a wonderful way to redirect at that point,” said Trenton Councilwoman Annette Lartigue, who is drafting a law to outlaw saggy pants. “The message is clear: We don’t want to see your backside.”

…for those who want to stop them see it as an indecent, sloppy trend that is a bad influence on children.

“It has the potential to catch on with elementary school kids, and we want to stop it before it gets there,” said C.T. Martin, an Atlanta councilman. “Teachers have raised questions about what a distraction it is.”

–From “Cities cracking down on saggy pants”

Ah, the tax dollars at work. On the surface, some people might be happy that they don’t have to see this anymore, but what kind of free nation is it when a person can’t look stupid if they so desire? And no one bring up the whole “I don’t want to see bare backsides” argument, because with the majority who wear baggy/saggy pants, you cannot; and, if you could, they could be arrested and/or fined thanks to indecent exposure laws which already exist. So why must we make changes to the system, which costs dollars that we’re always told we don’t have to spare?

This seems like yet another tangent for leaders to go off on, when much more important matters exist. It is not harming anyone to let people dress stupidly. If we can have fines and jail sentences for people who wear baggy pants, I say we should also have fines and jail sentences for fat broads who choose to shop in the juniors department or wear leggings that cling to them like plastic wrap.

Or how about instead of tackling the “very serious” issue of fashion that is hurting our eyes and feelings and ruining the futures of our children, we take a look at how often people are killed or having sexual affairs on television? That seems like it could be just as harmful to our oh so sensitive eyes and innocent little ones. Or how about the short sentences pedophiles sometimes serve? Seems like that would be worth amending for the sake of our children, doesn’t it? Or about how our government misspends the money it does collect from fines?

But no. We’re worried about sagging pants on teenagers.

Are there really so many idiots in the world that we must continue to vote for them so that they may concern themselves with things such as the way we dress and speak? Apparently so.

Comments ordered from oldest to newest.

joshua

September 18, 2007 at 8:52 am

link

“It is not harming anyone to let people dress stupidly.”

Well they do have their reasons. If they start imposing fines on the dress style, then gang members have a much more limited range of places they can go. Which means that it could become more safe in public areas because gang members will avoid it. It won’t solve the gang problem of course, but it would put a reasonable damper on it, and give cops a reason to suspect…well anybody. This means they can search someone they suspect has contraband much easier because they have a reason for arrest.

That said, yeah I agree it’s crushing our freedoms. But what are you to do about it? this has been happening more and more in so many different aspects of our lives. No smoking in public places, no baggy pants, no firearms, constant surveillance, Federally mandated ID cards, chip implants…… The only logical explanation is that it’s just going to keep on happening. This is reality: our government is crumbling.

Call me pessimistic, but I don’t think there is any way to reverse this trend. (without joining an al queida-like faction and using brute force). A new world must (and will) be created Just as we have done with the english colonies and the US. The US’s time is up, nothing lasts forever. Time to move on.

Ben

September 18, 2007 at 10:41 am

link

I definitely agree that this is a waste of time and money. It’s on par with trying to outlaw bad grammar.

Lelia

September 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm

link

Well they do have their reasons. If they start imposing fines on the dress style, then gang members have a much more limited range of places they can go.

Yes, because all gangs can be identified by their pants.

…and give cops a reason to suspect…well anybody. This means they can search someone they suspect has contraband much easier because they have a reason for arrest.

And just how Constitutional does that seem? Moreover, the whole concept of this is greatly in the eye of the beholder. What one cop may deem inappropriate and too baggy, another may not see as such. This sort of thing will give cops a lot more leeway to target those they want to, rather than those they have evidence of actually doing something wrong.

It is still innocence until proven guilty. Pants, not even the way you wear them, should be evidence enough of a bad lifestyle. That’s guilt by association, and it should not be enough to land you in jail.

This has been happening for a long time because of the people we continue to vote in (mainly according to blue and red colors), the people we are not holding responsible for their actions. The government is crumbling, but it is first growing, getting bigger, more powerful.

What should be done is people or states who disagree with these infringements should either mass demand change (which rarely works) or secede from the union, therefore separating a region from the looming government. It could be done. It’s just a question as to whether people have the balls to stand independently.

A new world must (and will) be created Just as we have done with the english colonies and the US. The US’s time is up, nothing lasts forever. Time to move on.

If you believe that, I suggest you move out of the United States before all hell breaks loose. However, I’m not far from agreeing with you. The United States as we know it today…it’s time is quite possibly up. But it is actually not the United States we started with, which was built more upon the idea of many independent bodies reporting to one fairly weak federal body. We were not such a singular unit at a time, to be governed by one mass body as we are today.

People point to phrases like “united we stand, divided we fall,” to argue that the States must stay together, under one body, the union. But why? We are a country so large and with so many people. Now many regions could divide and still stand, for their unique beliefs. Continued trade agreements and border agreements between regions would enable a powerful economy, but rule would be downsized, and therefore more beneficial to the people. At the same time, the decrease of ruling power for the federal government would weaken it.