Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New spin and the bright, shiny ball
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Balance; McCarthy; Cultra; Poe; Repos; Interpreters; Drivers; Schools; Deer; Curfew (Use all caps in password)
Posted in:
* The setup…
Charles Reeves’ pants fall past his hips, even with a belt. He wraps a rubber band around the cuffs so the hem of his jeans won’t scrape the ground. The 18-year-old Danville High School student layers his jeans over a pair of basketball shorts.
“It’s not as comfortable on my waist,” Reeves said of the style that he, like so many students, sports around campus.
This baggy style, however, is one that Ward 1 Alderman Tommie Reed wants to see banned under a citywide ordinance.
“I know it’s a fad … but it’s gone too far,” Reed said.
Over the past few months, Reed has repeatedly asked city council members to consider his suggestion. He called the popular style “indecent,” saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to show their underclothes.
* Apparently, this idea is all the rage in Louisiana…
Hike up those pants. Droopy drawers that bare skin or underwear might soon be forbidden fashion on the streets of several cities, and violators could be forced to part with some cash.
“I’m tired (of) looking at behinds,” Shreveport, Louisiana, Councilwoman Joyce Bowman said after Tuesday’s 4-3 vote to ban fanny-flaunting trousers.
Nobody can be arrested just for violating the ordinance, but they could be fined or required to perform community service. The maximum fine for a first offense is $100.
The city council in another Louisiana city, Alexandria, voted unanimously Tuesday to ban the baring. Its ordinance allows some sag, but 3 inches or more can bring a fine of $25 to $200 and a requirement for community service.
If the mayors of Shreveport and Alexandria sign the ordinances, they will bring Louisiana’s total to at least six, with at least two more cities considering bans.
Question: Do you think the government - any government - should have the right to tell people how to wear their pants in public?
Have a little fun with this one. It’s Friday, after all. Maybe you can suggest other ordinances for Ald. Reed.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New spin and the bright, shiny ball
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Balance; McCarthy; Cultra; Poe; Repos; Interpreters; Drivers; Schools; Deer; Curfew (Use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This kind of thing has been going on around the country addressing the hip hop style of dress of a lot of young men. I honestly thought this would be a fad that would have died by now. And thus we have city councils around the country attempting to legislate this.
I understand that the man has a problem with it and the description you gave heh makes this kid look “classy” but the government has no right to tell a person how to dress. The answer is no, it really should be this boys parents.
As a consolation maybe this boy will realize that using rubber bands on his pants aren’t proper and one day he’ll graduate to wearing business attire.
Comment by Levois Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:34 am
I personally want to make the legislation for clothing styles for women aged 18~30.
I’ll need a grant for the interns to help me research it.
Comment by Pat collins Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:39 am
With the rampany out of control plumbers crack crisis looming in this country, this is where our represenatives are forcusing their attention? We needed a law to stop the plumber crisis months ago! stop wasteing time on these side hip hop issues when we face a real crisis elsewhere.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:42 am
The whole thing looks absolutely ridicious and I dunno who thinks this is fashionable. It’s retarded.
Comment by Crimefighter Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:43 am
I hate the look with a passion, but hey, at least Charles wears a belt, a kid who rides pass my home everyday on a board leaves the belt off and uses cheap boxer undies. Kid looks like a total idiot to the older,more mature citizens of my village, but he’s harmless enough. So he has to hike his pants up, usually has his thumbs through the belt loops on either side so they don’t entirely fall to the ground—he thinks he looks ‘cool’ , I think he looks stupid, but we both co-exist. Myself coming from a generation who wore hotpants shorts and halter/tube tops am just glad he’s added the cheap boxers under the pants. I do believe though that schools should have a right to enforce light dress codes, no I didn’t say uniforms, just commen sense attire that does not call attention to itself and therefore disrupt the education process-butt cracks, buns, boobs and tummies don’t belong in a classroom setting, leave it for after school.
Comment by Princeville Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:48 am
I agree that the fad looks stupid, but honestly, doesn’t the city council have anything better to do? After seeing so many goofy ordinances passed by the Chicago City Council over the last couple of years, I really think that these kinds of stupid proposals are simply a way for aldermen to distract people from the real, tougher issues out there because they (the aldermen) don’t know how to address them.
Comment by Anonymous ZZZ Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:51 am
The question, Crimefighter, is not whether it looks good but whether it should be outlawed.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:52 am
I sure hope not. While walking the dog in the morning, I have been known to wear some pretty badly fitting clothes. If they ever pass a rule barring clothing covered in mud and dog spit [let’s just hope that look doesn’t catch on], I will have to move out of town.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:53 am
It may be unsightly-but their crotch dropped to their knees certainly make it easier to out sprint them for juvenile arrest-let them hobble themselves
Comment by red dog Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:56 am
The most appropriate jurisdiction for a ban on attire or how it is worn is the schools. Schools typically already have dress codes, be they hyper-strict or at least minimally acceptable standards. This at least covers a significant portion of the day and year. I also agree with the previous commenter who suggested that parents need to regulate their kids. The problem with allowing a non-school unit of government to regulate attire is the can of worms it opens. If you’re going to ban visible underwear in public, what about swim suits/bikini attire, which is actually more revealing? So much for public pools!!!
Comment by Illannoyed Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:57 am
I propose a new ordinance that would require the pants of Illinois public officials to be steel-belted in order to rein in any “testicular virility.”
Comment by Jake From Elwood Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:57 am
Skeeter I hope at least your dog is dressed nicely. After all we may need to have an ordiance barring nekkid dogs in public.
Besides if your dog is wearing clothes and makeup, people wont be gawking at you….
Comment by Ghost Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:58 am
This is a growing field of legal controversy. The Maryland Court of Appeals recently addressed a search and seizure issue related to low-slung pants. The court found a search of a suspects’s …ummmm… nether regions … to have been impermissble, but two justices disagreed, one on technical grounds and one saying: “I join Judge Battaglia’s dissent and would further hold that when a person wears their pants below the level of their [place where Forrest Gump got shot - don’t want to get banned for bad language], he or she is intentionally offering that area for observation by the public and obviously has no expectation of privacy sufficient to prohibit a police officer from also looking. If a person wants to have an expectation of privacy in that area of his or her body, he or she should keep their pants up when in public.”
See Paulino v. State, http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/75a06.pdf (last page)
Comment by Muskrat Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 9:59 am
I’m sorry, but I don’t think this is a big deal.
I have always tried to keep up with fashion, and I know I have dressed far worst than this.
I’ve worn skin tight jeans, super short shorts with boxers, disco shirts unbuttoned to my navel, pants so tight I probably injured myself, cowboy fashion, punk rock fashion, grung rock, hip hop fashion, and on the other hand, Armani suits and Ralph Lauren shoes.
I thought by now that the “sag” would be out of fashion by now, because it hit over 20 years ago. Instead it went from fad to trend. Even in the middle of nowhere, high school kids are wearing clothes like this. JCPenney carries a complete line of hip hop clothes. It is mainstream, baby!
Hopefully, when you start seeing 12 year olds named Jack or Molly dressing to look like 50 Cents in downtown Centralia, the trend is dead.
I think it has finally peaked. Lets pray to god it has!
Lets go back to nylon clothes and 6 inch platform shoes again, shall we?
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:07 am
If we are going to pass ordinances on clothing, then hairstyles should be included. I’ve seen kids driving around looking like cousin IT. Surely they can’t see - and that’s more of a hazard than baggy pants. If we can expand that to bad hairstyles, all the more better. There are a couple of people I would declare a citizens arrest to
Comment by hollyringo Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:10 am
===Lets go back to nylon clothes and 6 inch platform shoes again, shall we?===
Um, no. But I was pretty stylin’ back in the day with my fake silk shirts, “elephant” bell-bottom jeans (which, by the way, some legislators wanted to ban back then) and platform shoes. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:11 am
No, the government should not mandate dress codes. It’s bs. Plumbers everywhere should be outraged.
How about a ban on people wearing clothes that are a couple of sizes too small?
Or a ban on government officials wearing codpieces?
Or a ban on government officials using too much hair product?
Comment by jerry 101 Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:12 am
Tough question. But they got to be careful how they handle this, as a ban on hip-hop style clothes could be seen as descrimating, sicne there mostly worn by black teens.
Places like schools should not allow it becase of the possible gangster stuff, but im not sure if we can pass a law banning specific clothes in public. Obviously there are indecency issues if someone is exposing too much, but to say soeone cant were hiphuggers or baggy pants on the street is ridiculous.
Comment by pickles!! Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:13 am
Sorry for threadjacking, I promise not to do it again, but I need some advice.
I’m going to be in the S’field in a couple of weeks for work. I haven’t been to Springfield since I was a young’un… I think I’ll be in the downtown area (not certain, but I think). Any recommendations on where to eat? Where to drink?
Comment by jerry 101 Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:14 am
Oh, yeah, the gang/gangster/gangsta angle. I guess we better ban zoot suits, snap-brim fedoras, pinky rings, and …. violin cases.
Comment by Muskrat Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:16 am
And by the way, I look very hot in hip hop fashions - if I say so myself!
Just because I am VanillaMan doesn’t mean I can’t wear a grille! At the Methodists Men’s Meeting, and at the Masons, it is all the fad right now!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:21 am
Or are those dentures they’re wearing?
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:21 am
I just wonder how some of these kids walk when the crotch of the pants is below their knees.
There have to be some standards in dress, or folks will walk around nekkid, and we don’t want to see most of them. However, the “Man” should stay away from legislating particular styles of dress and let the hip-hoppers and skate-nazis be. Otherwise, we would have to ban overweight women from wearing hip-huggers and crop tops and fat men from donning Spandex.
On second thought, perhaps there ought to be a law.
Comment by Fan of the Game Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:30 am
Yea, it is a goofy look, but it shouldn’t be banned.
Heck, if they start banning goofy looking clothing, Dave Dring will have to go out and buy a whole new wardrobe.
Comment by Jaded Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:36 am
LOL!!!
Dring, I know you’re out there, are you gonna allow that to stand?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:38 am
Conservation of Gravity is the new up and coming movement! There are many who consume far more than their fair share of gravity. So much so that the global warming phenomenon has been proven to be caused by the Earth actually wobbling on its axis. Clothing that hides these people from identification as the guilty ones should be forbidden. Conserve gravity, use only your fair share, and help beautify America!
Comment by A Citizen Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:39 am
Oh for crying out loud. I remember mini skirts, bell bottoms, and hip huggers some of us wore. And back in the mid-late 60’s that was pretty daring, and most definitely ugly, especially if the skirts got too short and the legs, well that’s better left unsaid. There are just some women who should not entertain the idea of wearing anything that comes below their natural waistline or more than 2 inches above the knees. Tie dyed shirts, peace medalions, bandanas on the head (the first version of a doo rag) - all of this has come full circle only now it’s to the extreme. I can handle kids making themselves look like idiots. They’re not hurting anyone and they definitely don’t offend me. Often times that’s the only laugh I get in a day. The things that frightens me though is that the 60’s styles have come full circle with avengeance. What will the styles be like in 30-40 years? Then we will definitely need fashion police.
Comment by Just My Opinion Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:45 am
“government has no right to tell a person how to dress.”
Government (which is really societal agreement) says you do have to dress. Going out with no clothes is frowned upon. As a society we have agreed upon a minimum standard- you have to at least have clothes. As to how the required coverings ought to be arranged, I don’t think there is enough consensus and there are enough differing views that legislation (codified societal opinion) isn’t appropriate.
Apparently, however, a solution is at hand. Southwest Airlines seems to have the ability to decide who wears what and when. Let them render a decision on whetehr baggy pants get to fly.
(There is a bad pun in there somewhere.)
Comment by Big Red Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:58 am
Only when Jesse Jackson and assorted “reverends” start their campaign against baggy pants, should government stick its ugly heads into people’s business.
Comment by Brian Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:59 am
>The question, Crimefighter, is not whether it looks good but whether it should be outlawed.
There’s already laws on the books regarding indecent exposure. I would say it does violate indecent exposure laws.
Comment by Crimefighter Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:08 am
can’t we just ban clothes altogether? that would solve the problem…
Comment by bored now Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:11 am
I don’t think they should ban it outright. Prohibition is not the answer. Instead, I suggest the government implement a “crack tax” on the baggy hip-hop pants. The tax would be a 10 percent surcharge on scheduled items of clothing, jewelry and orthodontia associated with hip-hop culture. The proceeds would go to fund education– fashion education, preferably.
The guv could promote the tax with a set of promo ads. Maybe somebody could be at the mall buying their sags and all of a sudden a little duck would pop up and quack “Crack tax!”
–err, has that been done?
Comment by HoosierDaddy Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:14 am
No fans of parachute pants? oh the humanity.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:17 am
Hoosier, I think it’s being considered by those looking for new revenue sources. Rather than loophole closing, though they are trying to come up with some type of name that aptly describes the process without being distasteful.
And I think that spandex should be outlawed, but I shudder to think of those who would testify in opposition to it. No school groups allowed at the Capitol that day.
Comment by Liberal Louisa Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:24 am
I don’t believe crack showing is unique to hiphop culture. Jeff Foxworthy has a bit wherein he states, “If you see a sign that says Say No to Crack and it reminds you to pull your pants up, you might be a redneck.” So a ban on crack showing could have wider implications than expected.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:30 am
“Do you think the government - any government - should have the right to tell people how to wear their pants in public?”
If I wanted my government telling me how to dress, I’d move to Iran. (Washington Post)
TEHRAN, Iran — A draft law aimed at encouraging Islamic dress raised fears Saturday that Iran’s hard-line government plans to re-impose veils and head-to-toe overcoats on women who have shirked the restrictions for years, letting hair show and wearing jeans and shapely outfits. […]
Laws in place since the 1979 Islamic Revolution require women to wear “chador” _ a head-to-toe, loose-fitting black overcoat and veil that covers their hair and hides their shapes. They were enforced by religious police and paramilitaries, who castigated women who showed too much hair, wore makeup or had a chador that did not fit the required dark colors and shape. […]
The 13-article bill _ which focuses on economic incentives for Islamic dress _ has been touted by conservatives as a vital tool to curb Western influence in the conservative Islamic Republic. […]
The bill does not call for police or other bodies to enforce stricter styles of dress for women. Instead, it rallies state agencies to promote Islamic dress and “encourage the public to abstain from choosing clothes that aren’t appropriate to the culture of Iran,” according to the copy received from the parliament’s press office.
It also would give economic incentives, including bank loans, to producers making Islamic-style clothing and impose tariffs on clothes imports. It leaves it to the Culture Ministry and others to define what Islamic dress means.
First they start telling you what you can’t wear, then they tell you what you must wear. Personally, bans on fashion, clothing, etc. don’t sit well with me. That’s a path I’d rather not venture down.
My philosophy has always been that I vote for politicians who will protect my freedoms, not take them away.
Comment by Kiyoshi Martinez Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:39 am
The idea of laws regulating style of dress is just not prudent. If you want a fad to die out; just ignore it. My pet peeve are guys who buy their sport coats and suit jackets off the rack and then don’t tailor the sleeves. The sleeves hang down past their knucles and they look like a gorilla.
Comment by one of the 35 Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 11:52 am
What’s next, a law against lousy tie selection?
If you want to campaign against a fad, do it against teenage tattoos. You can pull up your pants.
Comment by Anon Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:04 pm
The baggy pants style started as an offshoot of youngsters going to jail and having their belts confiscated (Jail Pants). The baggy pants thing became a badge of honor and ultimately a fad. The rappers helped promote it with the tone and message in their music. That carries on today and is an aggravation to many of the folks who are rilled by both the music and style of dress. It seems to intimidate one side while being used by the wearer as a method to get in their face. I don’t personally care. It’s as if someone is afraid the kids with low riders will steal a purse, but hey, why worry, they won’t be able to run away. Hey, it’s a fad folks. It will pass, just like bell bottoms and double knits and leisure suits.
Comment by Justice Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:33 pm
Personally I would like a ban on comb overs longer than 6 inches, hair pieces that do not match the texture or color of the rest of the remaing hair, and white belts. However white socks are always in fashion. Particulalry with sandals. Bring back Polka culture!
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:39 pm
I’m with Kiyoshi.
If we survived the leisure suit, we can get through the saggies. (For the record, AA never owned or wore one of those hideous flammable getups, but I did have a couple sweet disco outfits like Capt. Fax described.)
Hypothetically, if I could be the fashion police for a day, my ordinance would involve the mandatory fitting of “grannies” to all attention-seeking fading celebrities who are on the last 30 seconds of their 15 minutes of fame.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:42 pm
What nonsense! What SHOULD be banned is bad
hairpieces on the heads of vain politicians.
Comment by Esteban Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:42 pm
Also, the wearing of stretch pants on women
who are larger than size 12 should be banned.
Comment by Esteban Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:43 pm
that law is socialistic!
Comment by richy jr. Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:46 pm
I occasionally have this problem with drooping drawers without even trying/wanting to show off my posterior.
I think schools and businesses have the right so set reasonable dress codes for students and employees. but otherwise, I don’t think this is a subject that should be regulated by anyone in the public domain. Short of outright indecent exposure(like the Supreme court,don’t ask me what it is, I know it when I see it) political busybodies should mind their own business.
I would think that every political jurisdiction should have more important issues to be worried about than clothing style and interfering with taste and preference decisions that are best left to each individual to make.
Comment by Captain America Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 12:56 pm
On the serious side, I think schools and workplaces can make rules for their facilities to “cover” that issue. And if a unit of government would like rules for their facilities that’s fine - especially the courtroom, village hall, capitol, government offices, etc. If they don’t want to see boxer shorts hanging out on defendants, drivers license applicants, etc., I’m OK with that). As to what people wear any other time — well we’ll just have to wait for the next fad to give us something to complain about! There will ALWAYS be something.
Comment by Baltimoron Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 1:25 pm
It’s a bit of a Puritanical argument. If baggy pants are outlawed for being indecent, what makes the recent surge of skinny jeans of men decent? Or the goth fad? Or, for that matter, Britney Spears latest outfit?
I really enjoying clothes and my freedom to dress horribly. The only enforcement should be spousal.
Comment by Sarbanharble Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 1:40 pm
An interesting note, I have friends that are Cops, they love the loose baggy pants because they say it evens up the sides when they must chase the criminal on foot.
I do not think Government should get into the dress code business. Where does it stop? I have seen some people that dressed in normal clothes look absoultly discusting. Does government get start banning those people from wearing that type of clothes.
SCHOOLS are the exception, I do believe in dress codes/uniforms in schools. Having been a teacher I have seen the difference.
Comment by He makes Ryan Look like a Saint Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 1:47 pm
Aren’t there suburban clothing stores and factories that are ripe for some picketing?
Comment by Brian Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 2:22 pm
I’m sure Blago will step in to outlaw this clothing practice. It seems the pants keep getting lower and lower. If it keeps going , the next thing you know, you might actually be able to see someones testicular fortitude.
Comment by Concerned Voter Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 2:26 pm
What are we South West Airlines?
Comment by shelbyville Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 2:47 pm
Two simple solutions from when I was in school:
1) If your underpants waistband was exposed, someone would give you a wedgie.
2) If your pants were too loose, someone would pull them down.
Bring back these “old school” pranks and the pants would quickly return to their proper position! (From the government is the solution side: we could authorize beat cops to impose the above sanctions.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 2:49 pm
Ah, the memories of the fights my mom & I had over my hemlines in the 60s. Got the go-go boots for Christmas one year & life was complete. Then recently caught Nancy Sinatra’s old video of “These Boots” and was totally shocked at how short her skirt was. We’re all stupid when we’re young. Don’t see why that should be against the law, though.
Comment by yinn Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 4:49 pm
The “sag” is so retro.
I’ve been into skinny jeans since last year.
You people are so 2004!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 4:54 pm
There should not be a law against showing undercloths or anything to do with clothing style. We already have decency laws related to public nudity, so as long as everything is covered up that should be based on those laws, then it should be up to the individual on how they choose to do the covering.
I’ve always thought it was interesting that we make a distinction between shorts and undershorts, even though they may have the same construction and opaqueness of fabric. If it’s covered, it’s covered, regardless of what we call the item covering it!
Comment by PJ Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 4:56 pm
Without taking a position on the pants thing, there are too many other issues plagueing our city for our Aldermen to be concerned with someones pants. All too ofter I see men and women sag there pants. It’s a fad, the government should not be concerned with regulating hip hop “fads” unless it is causing a danger or harm to the people of this city. Aldermen should be more focus on helping the Mayor balance the budget, getting the Office of Professional Standards in professional order, making sure CTA receives all the money needed from the state so that it doesn’t come to a dooms day senario again and on and on and on.
Comment by One_mcmad Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 5:37 pm
Brian don’t get the revs involved in any of this…how about them lime, red, purple suits and matching shoes the revs wear…I say no, there shouldn’t be a law banning prison wear(baggy wear)…I say let the style run its course…the kids will grow out of this “fashion” and will look back in disbelief.
Comment by ChicagoDem Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 5:41 pm
No outlawing, that is ridiculous. If they do out law, they should also outlaw the skinny skater jeans that could give a man a yeast infection. Personally, I am an XL, but prefer to wear medium.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Sep 14, 07 @ 10:05 pm