New baggy pants law in Chicago suburb: Can't show more than 3 inches of underwear in public

Star Tribune ^ | 6/20/08

[aruanan]

The ordinance is as stupid as the practice it’s trying to regulate. Hemlines, necklines, and lengths of pants and sleeves have always fluctuated. It was only a matter of time before someone did this with pants—they got close with hip-huggers of the 60’s. No one complains about breast cleavage. And here there is no buttock cleavage showing. It would be equivalent to someone wearing a very low cut halter top with a t-shirt underneath. The biggest problem with this “style” is how stupid it looks, just like a “grill” for the teeth or two big fake diamond earrings on guys. Once you have a bunch of white college students doing it, it will fall out of fashion. In the meantime, there should be no laws passed, just a lot of people pointing fingers and laughing their butts off over it.

[BooksForTheRight.com]

The law doesn’t mention any race. The ACLU is racist for saying that only one race walks around this way.

[Biblebelter]

The problem here is the social welfare state. I think most of the people who wear their pants like that are unemployeed. I do not know of any employers who would let employees dress like that. I do not what schools allow, but the schools are within their bounds to institute dress codes. The problem does reflect poorly on the individuals but it also reflects on society, where we have healthy young unemployeed men living well without gainful employment and unaffected by the dress codes applied in the working world.

[BBT]

I have heard this isn't just a style (as in something introduced by the fashion industry), but has been adopted from the "prison look". However impractical it is when running, I imagine it is very practical when hiding things, such as small electronics, drugs, and weapons. Maybe that is the strongest argument for a town wanting this law.

My grandson has tried an introductory version of this at his private Christian grade school. His teacher put a stop to it and then his parents reinforced the message. I have threatened him with a painful wedgie if I ever see it. But of course Granny would feel just awful about that, so would then I'd have to give him a huge, fish-lipped smooch in front of all his friends. Nipped the baggy-pants idea in the bud real quick.

[aruanan]

I have heard this isn't just a style (as in something introduced by the fashion industry), but has been adopted from the "prison look". However impractical it is when running, I imagine it is very practical when hiding things, such as small electronics, drugs, and weapons. Maybe that is the strongest argument for a town wanting this law.

Styles don't come exclusively from the fashion media. It's usually the fashion media that spots a style and takes advantage of it. I can't imagine where anybody would hide anything. They'd have to have some kind of device inside the pants to hold whatever would be hidden. Anything of any weight would drag the pants down. Just the weight of the pants drags them down necessitating the guys always grabbing the front to haul them back into prime position.

[gathersnomoss]

In high school, girls were always showing their underwear. Only those chosen by the offender were allowed to hold the measuring tape. The offended were just happy to look.

[Borges]

And from now on everyone must wear their underwar on the outside. So we can check.

[DustyMoment]

Bummer!!

This is going to put a LOT of plumbers out of work!!

/sarc

[wideawake]

You should have written that in Swedish.

[StevieJ]

Cupid should get him to meet his perfect partner:



Not so much cupid's arrow needed, but maybe a harpoon

[Question_Assumptions]

Want to get rid of this fad? Start spreading it around that the reason to keep their pants so low is that it makes it easier for them to let some other guy bugger them.