Zod, I hate this state...

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-02-09 08:32pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4249831.stm

Fines for 'droopy drawers' backed

US politicians fed up with catching an eyeful of underwear want to fine those who won't hitch up their trousers.

The Virginia state house has voted to outlaw the trend of wearing trousers so low that underwear hangs over the top.

Delegates said the habit, popular across the US and in other Western countries, was "coarsening" society.

But others hit back, urging legislators to remember their own "fashion follies" and saying the law would be used mostly against black people.

The house adopted the "droopy drawers" bill by a margin of 60-34.

If the state senate also approves, youngsters in Virginia showing too much of their boxer shorts or G-strings could be fined $50 (£26).

The habit, apparently picked up from rap and skateboarding culture, has become popular among boys and girls of all races, but particularly black youngsters.

Democrat Delegate Algie T Howell proposed the bill.

"It's not an attack on baggy pants. It's not about Janet Jackson. It's not about Randy Moss," he said, referring to the American footballer recently fined for pretending to "moon" opposing fans.

"To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country," he added.

Faux pas

Others were similarly offended by the current trend.

"Most of us would identify this as the coarsening of society," said Delegate John Reid, a Republican.

"Underwear is called underwear for a reason."

But Delegate Lionell Spruill, a Democrat, objected, calling it "a foolish bill".

He asked fellow politicians to remember their own former fashion faux pas, including Afro haircuts, platform shoes and shiny polyester "shell suits".

"Please, let these kids express themselves," he urged, before warning there could be a sinister side to the bill.

"This is going to be a bill that targets blacks. You know who they are going to stop," he said.

Its not what they're trying to ban that pisses me off, its the fact that they're trying to. I mean, isn't the way someone wears their clothes covered by freedom of expression. But heres an idea to people who find it offending: Don't bloody fucking look! Avert your eyes to something else. Besides, it seems most of the people that wear their pants like that, wear shirts long enough to cover the exposed areas.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-02-09 08:35pm

Aya wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4249831.stm

Fines for 'droopy drawers' backed

US politicians fed up with catching an eyeful of underwear want to fine those who won't hitch up their trousers.

The Virginia state house has voted to outlaw the trend of wearing trousers so low that underwear hangs over the top.

Delegates said the habit, popular across the US and in other Western countries, was "coarsening" society.

But others hit back, urging legislators to remember their own "fashion follies" and saying the law would be used mostly against black people.

The house adopted the "droopy drawers" bill by a margin of 60-34.

If the state senate also approves, youngsters in Virginia showing too much of their boxer shorts or G-strings could be fined $50 (£26).

The habit, apparently picked up from rap and skateboarding culture, has become popular among boys and girls of all races, but particularly black youngsters.

Democrat Delegate Algie T Howell proposed the bill.

"It's not an attack on baggy pants. It's not about Janet Jackson. It's not about Randy Moss," he said, referring to the American footballer recently fined for pretending to "moon" opposing fans.

"To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country," he added.

Faux pas

Others were similarly offended by the current trend.

"Most of us would identify this as the coarsening of society," said Delegate John Reid, a Republican.

"Underwear is called underwear for a reason."

But Delegate Lionell Spruill, a Democrat, objected, calling it "a foolish bill".

He asked fellow politicians to remember their own former fashion faux pas, including Afro haircuts, platform shoes and shiny polyester "shell suits".

"Please, let these kids express themselves," he urged, before warning there could be a sinister side to the bill.

"This is going to be a bill that targets blacks. You know who they are going to stop," he said.
Its not what they're trying to ban that pisses me off, its the fact that they're trying to. I mean, isn't the way someone wears their clothes covered by freedom of expression. But heres an idea to people who find it offending: Don't bloody fucking look! Avert your eyes to something else. Besides, it seems most of the people that wear their pants like that, wear shirts long enough to cover the exposed areas.

Don't look? Where's the fun in that? Don't make the droopy pants illegal, just pass a bill immunizing from liability anybody who tosses a live goldfish down the exposed crack ....

I'd walk around with a Ziploc bag filled with goldfish!

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-02-09 08:42pm

W... T... F...

What if it became like speeding? where you see a cop and suddenly, "HOLY SHIT, MAN, THE FUZZ! HIKE UP YOUR PANTS! NOW!"

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-02-09 08:46pm

One would think that the legislators would have more important things to spend their time on.

This from the gal who lives in the state where grits was made the official state processed food by legislators who apparently had nothing better to spend their time and energy on.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-02-09 08:47pm

I'm inclined to say that when people do stupid things like wear their pants too low you make fun of them, not try to make it illegal. Making something illegal makes it cool, even when it's furthest from it.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-02-09 08:50pm

According to my law book, the government technically has the right, no matter how stupid, to deterimine what is "obscene" and prevent it. It's very subjective

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-02-09 08:56pm

Legislating taste in fashion is criminal incompetence.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-02-09 09:02pm

This is exactly the same as legislating on issues such as tatoos and piercings.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-02-09 09:14pm

I wonder if they will try and render judgement on mor8idly o8e$e and $pande%?

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2005-02-09 09:23pm

Aya, your state isn't the first. Louisiana beat you to the punch trying to do this last year I believe. It may or may not have passed, but no action was taken on the law.

CDS · Post by **CDS** » 2005-02-09 09:26pm

They should just make being a scally illegal

Excuse me whilst I put on my fire-proof coat before you all flame me..

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-02-09 10:12pm

On a board predominantly American, I doubt many will even get that, CDS.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-02-09 10:14pm

They should make it legal for people wearing saggy pants like the fucking dumb shits they are (pet peeve of mine) to have their pants pulled down in public at any time by anyone who wants to do so, but they shouldn't make it illegal.

CDS · Post by **CDS** » 2005-02-09 10:17pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:On a board predominantly American, I doubt many will even get that, CDS.

I expect them to be able to google though

Oh dear, I seem to be starting flame wars even when I'm not meaning to.

entfern · Post by **entfern** » 2005-02-09 10:22pm

too bad that we can't ban them from wearing pants too high. . .

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-02-09 10:24pm

Nobody's going to flame you for advocating the systematic rounding up of all scallies and subsequent slave labour and termination of said miscreants.

I'm all for being able to arrest scallies for existing.

The actual report makes me want to laugh and cry. So I think I'll just lie.

So, has the US gone back to arresting women for baring their ankles? Because that's certainly what this reminded me of. It'd be funny as hell if someone tried to get crucifixes with jesus on banned for being sexually BDSM themed.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-02-09 10:28pm

If we got rid of all those we deem lesser humans, then we'd have a lot more work to do ourselves. As much as I hate scallies, they form the bulk of manual labour (go figure), so scallicide would be against our interests.

I much prefer mocking them anyway, as tempting as blasting them into the sun is.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-02-09 10:45pm

Jesus, I think I love this new neo-con wave in the states. To watch it from a safe standpoint in Canada is just hilarious. This sort of parade of clowns in suits is darkly absurd.

Obloquium · Post by **Obloquium** » 2005-02-09 10:51pm

There's also a discussion of social conservatism and democracy in the Indonesia thread. Nothing larger to report or comment on right now.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2005-02-09 11:24pm

I fear for my sanity. Though I wonder whether or not my aunt and uncle might be protesting this in some way.

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2005-02-10 03:07am

im tellin you the Cyclons run the state of VA.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-02-10 05:57am

Destructionator XIII wrote:As much as I hate people who wear their pants like that, I don't think its place is in the law. I wish those styles would go away, but making it illegal won't do that. However I do think it is legal for them to make that law based on the fact that they can make public nudity illegal.

I concur. Its freedom of expression, which is protected by the first amendment. I do agree that the style is stupid, but doesn't break any real laws. Infact, every person I've seen with 'droopy draws' has made sure to keep their underwear covered from view.

Maya: Yes, our lawmakers do have more important things they should be focusing on, like balancing the budget and killing off some of this debt were in (and believe me, we are waist deep in it).

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2005-02-10 06:28am

Mayabird wrote:This from the gal who lives in the state where grits was made the official state processed food by legislators who apparently had nothing better to spend their time and energy on.

Let alone the disturbing fact that your state government even recognizes it as food. :-\

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-02-10 06:40am

Our state's cattle industry has a Beef Queen. A Beef Queen.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-02-10 07:03am

Let alone the disturbing fact that your state government even recognizes it as food. :-\

Some regional foods are better than others. Give me a cheesesteak over grits any day.

How could it take you 5 minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes? Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than any place on the face of the earth? Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Zod, I hate this state...

Zod, I hate this state...

Re: Zod, I hate this state...