Uphold your pants, uphold the law

New Posts

hoppyfrog

hoppyfrog

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
228
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/05/georgia.baggy.pants.law/index.html?hpt=T2

5 Sept 2010

The town of Dublin, Georgia, is putting saggy, baggy pants in the category of indecent exposure, with violators facing fines of up to $200.

Dublin Mayor Phil Best said he plans to sign this week an amendment to the municipality's indecent exposure ordinance. The amendment, which Best plans to put into immediate effect at the City Council meeting, prohibits the wearing of pants or skirts "more than three inches below the top of the hips exposing the skin or undergarments."

"We've gotten several complaints from citizens saying the folks with britches down below their buttocks was offensive, and wasn't there something we could do about it," Best said.

much more at link

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
they should ban the wearing of micro-minis, cleavage-baring tops, and stilletto boots too - that would put all their hookers out of business
 
LadyL said:
they should ban the wearing of micro-minis, cleavage-baring tops, and stilletto boots too - that would put all their hookers out of business
Click to expand...

Yep, and plenty of teen-age girls, too.

Seriously, I applaud this town for doing something about those pants. Knee-highs used to be sox, but nowadays it seems to refer to the crotch (of pants).
 
LadyL said:
they should ban the wearing of micro-minis, cleavage-baring tops, and stilletto boots too - that would put all their hookers out of business
Click to expand...

Funny.


I Dont believe they should be allowed to pass a law about dress codes.

If they can show it on TV then we the people should be able to walk arround in it.

This isnt about people who have their privates exposed , They said three inches below the hips.

People are built differently so what may appear to be three inches isnt. So it wouldnt be able to be enforced equally because some people would be able to show half the backside with the 3 inch law and other wouldnt be able to wear pants that hit under there belly button.

Also it opens up a very weird reason for an officer to be pulling out a tape measure.
Another thing it does is waste tax payer money trying to pass this crap because this fool should be working on a real problem.


This means hip huggers and some low rise jeans would be off limits as well.
Also I get so sick of people complaining about what they dont like other people doing.
Are we not a free county? Can we not choose to dress ourselves? Who is this law protecting and serving anyway??
 
Soulmagent said:
Funny.


I Dont believe they should be allowed to pass a law about dress codes.

If they can show it on TV then we the people should be able to walk arround in it.

This isnt about people who have their privates exposed , They said three inches below the hips.

People are built differently so what may appear to be three inches isnt. So it wouldnt be able to be enforced equally because some people would be able to show half the backside with the 3 inch law and other wouldnt be able to wear pants that hit under there belly button.

Also it opens up a very weird reason for an officer to be pulling out a tape measure.
Another thing it does is waste tax payer money trying to pass this crap because this fool should be working on a real problem.


This means hip huggers and some low rise jeans would be off limits as well.
Also I get so sick of people complaining about what they dont like other people doing.
Are we not a free county? Can we not choose to dress ourselves? Who is this law protecting and serving anyway??
Click to expand...

We know who this is aimed at.
How come it's ok to have those car washes with young women in barely- there bikinis? Not saying I like the low pants. I don't.
 
montana_16 said:
We know who this is aimed at.
How come it's ok to have those car washes with young women in barely- there bikinis? Not saying I like the low pants. I don't.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Whatever happened to people having the ability to turn their heads.

I think the low-riding pants look stupid, but nobody forces me to stare at them.

Seems like our elected officials will do anything other than address the very real problems we have in this country.
 
No, the government is already in too much of our stuff. You have to let people express themselves, even if it's tasteless; however, not a crime.
 
I hate those pants and don't think women should be naked outside either but the government intercedes into our life too much already.

They should not pass a law on a dress code. I'm against this.
Just don't look at those that wear this type of clothing.


Goz
 
Soulmagent said:
Funny.


I Dont believe they should be allowed to pass a law about dress codes.

If they can show it on TV then we the people should be able to walk arround in it.

This isnt about people who have their privates exposed , They said three inches below the hips.

People are built differently so what may appear to be three inches isnt. So it wouldnt be able to be enforced equally because some people would be able to show half the backside with the 3 inch law and other wouldnt be able to wear pants that hit under there belly button.

Also it opens up a very weird reason for an officer to be pulling out a tape measure.
Another thing it does is waste tax payer money trying to pass this crap because this fool should be working on a real problem.


This means hip huggers and some low rise jeans would be off limits as well.
Also I get so sick of people complaining about what they dont like other people doing.
Are we not a free county? Can we not choose to dress ourselves? Who is this law protecting and serving anyway??
Click to expand...

Low-rise jeans should be off limits. I've seen more teen girl butt crack than I ever thought I'd have to endure.

I'm actually a really conservative person when it comes to how people dress. Didn't there used to be decency laws? Bad taste is one thing, but when you start exposing your undergarments and body parts that should be covered by clothing (butt crack/cleavage), I guess maybe you are not able to dress yourself.

We stopped being able to write girls up for showing too much cleavage because one girl's parents retained a lawyer who asked "Why are teachers looking?" Well, I challenge you to bend over a desk to help a student with school work and not see down her cleavage when her shirt barely covers her nipples. We were not able to look away, and it was very awkward.

If I don't want to see a movie or a TV show that has butt crack and cleavage, I can simply not watch. But why should I have to spend my time in the street averting my eyes from someone else's partial nudity?
 
If the issue is what parents should forbid in their children, then I agree: nobody needs to show his or her butt crack.

But when we start talking about government intervention, that's a different matter. Not everything that is tasteless, tacky or wrong should be illegal.

Sorry, but I remember when miniskirts first became popular with kids (and equally unpopular with adults). I have vivid recollections of male teachers forcing girls to kneel in the hallway, because the school rule was that skirts had to touch the ground when kneeling. Talk about creepy! A lot creepier than cleavage.

Having police measure waists, crotches and the waistlines of pants will be creepier yet.

ETA: What about plumbers, electricians and handy men? They are famous for their visible butt cracks. I guess we'll need to build even more prisons...
 
No one should have to spend time adverting their eyes to day avoid seeing things they do not like.

People should accept and expect they will see things every they do not like. It is the price of equality and freedom.

I heard one of my neighbors complaning she has to see her neighbors boat everyday because we dont live in an HOA. .

She thought the boat was ugly. He saved for years to buy it. She might have seen his butt cheek while he worked on it at some point.
Really what is wrong with live and let live?
 
I can only hope that if this city is wasting time on what people are wearing then they have zero crime, excellent city roads, no issues with sewer, water or garbage and no new development or pressing zoning issues.

Hopefully, the animal shelter is empty, everyone has a place to live, everyone has a job, the parks are in excellent shape, business is booming and schools are in tip-top shape.
 
Nova said:
ETA: What about plumbers, electricians and handy men? They are famous for their visible butt cracks. I guess we'll need to build even more prisons...
Click to expand...


...total agreeance, but snipped for my reply

You nailed it once again, dear Nova!

On Saturday, I had a rush errand and forgot to put on a belt. On my second stop, it was too late...my freshly washed jeans had stretched-out already. I just forged-on, and thought about those plumber cracks while I was selecting the Brie at Von's. My eyes aren't so good, so I had to bend-down to read the labels...oh my.

If anyone thought the view was worth mentioning, they would be waving signs at my door to do it again! But nobody even noticed (should I worry, ha).

This is a no-brainer. I don't want the govt in my wardrobe, of ALL places.
 
I would be more in favor of a law that allowed the "pantsing" of anyone with the low riders. I'm sure that pants slightly inclined to show some bun cleavage when selecting brie at Von's would not fall to the knees upon a pantsing whereas the baggy britches that somehow defy gravity and hang below the bunnage I believe would be the easy target. It would be so much more fun that way and we would avoid the red tape that is going into issuing all these fines or sentences or whatever.

It would be the test: if a good tug can't pull them all the way down, then they are legal. If we couldn't see a plumber's crack and laugh, what would we have to love about plumbers? (oh yeah, they do make the toilet work again).

If you got pantsed and they fell down, you would just have to live with that...no harm, no foul.

This could become my one serious goal in life because the urge I feel to pants some dude with those belted pants with the waistband around the upper thighs and the boxers in view is almost overwhelming!! I just KNOW those pants would be a pile around the ankles. Then I'd RUN because they aren't going to catch me with pants around their ankles. Problem is I would get capped, pretty sure so I've managed to show restraint :p

I used to be a famous pantser back in the 80's when those hideous baggy gym pants were in style, what were they called? I'd be arrested nowdays. Ahh the good ole days.
 
I know I was in my twenties in the 80s but i do not remember those pants thank God. Anything I say about them will just be too much potty humor for today.
 
I absolutely despise those pants and think they look utterly ridiculous. However, the government creating a dress code is equally ridiculous. This is a very slippery slope and a waste of time and money. As long as I'm not forced to wear them, I don't feel I have a right to require someone else not to.
 
i avoid people who cant pull up their britches, but pity them too.

how unloved must you feel to have to make a "statement" that youre too st00pid to see what you look like?
 
Belinda said:
I absolutely despise those pants and think they look utterly ridiculous. However, the government creating a dress code is equally ridiculous. This is a very slippery slope and a waste of time and money. As long as I'm not forced to wear them, I don't feel I have a right to require someone else not to.
Click to expand...

I recently lost 35 pounds (Whaddaya know? Turns out alcohol is really fattening.). So now my pants slip down and reveal the tops of my boxers.

You may find it ridiculous, but I'm damn proud of my (all of a sudden) "low riders"! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 3,577 (members: 197, guests: 3,380)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
3,380
Total visitors
3,577
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,749
Messages
17,958,390
Members
228,602
Latest member
jrak
Back
Top