posted
Ugh. Why is it okay to wear a bikini there (I assume) and not that fashion? I mean, I think it is extremely ugly, but a law?
The blurb says "Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt."
Actually, the belts are much tighter and need to be strong, I understand. I have a nephew who does this, and so I asked his mom how the heck the pants stayed up. She said they cinch up the belts as tight as they can.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'd like to see this fashion die as much as anyone. But making a law against it? That's excessive. It's no different from making a law against tie-dye or bleached jeans. Considering the underwear these kids wear is generally boxers, which covers far more than a bathing suit would, and that even then the underwear isn't completely exposed, it's hard to imagine what's particularly "lewd" about it. It's tacky, yes. But since when is tackiness grounds for legislation?
quote:On Tuesday, he said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks[. . . .]
That claim is just asinine. Granted I don't live in Virginia, but I know plenty of blacks who don't dress like that, and plenty of non-blacks who do. What this law has to do with blacks I cannot imagine. Why must people pretend everything is a racial issue? Can't this just be what it is? It's prudes trying to put a stop to a fashion trend they don't like. It has nothing to do with anyone's bloody ethnicity!
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What this law has to do with blacks I cannot imagine."
I can. It would be like passing a law in the late '70s against wearing a baseball cap backwards.
That people who were not black started doing it shortly thereafter does not mean that it wasn't primarily a "black" fashion trend at first. It's not a law that's meant to target blacks, but it IS a law that springs from fear of the other; it wouldn't exist if the fashion in question were perceived as mainstream.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you talking about? Didn't Jeff Foxworthy teach you anything? Those in the black community were just the ones that decided to put underwear on first.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Verily, Not being from the area, it's understandable that you wouldn't see this as racially motivated. Unfortunately, with roughly 75% of Richmond, and 60% of Norfolk being black, it will affect them more there. To your point about not all black people dressing that way, well...not all do, but come to Richmond, Norfolk, or the D.C. area and you might change your mind.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The House of Delegates voted 60 to 34 Tuesday to impose a $50 fine on anyone found wearing pants low enough that a substantial portion of undergarments is showing. Note the vote: It wasn't even close. ...
Virginia yields to no state in its protection of individual rights. This year, the legislature has stood tall against the threat to freedom posed by the use of cameras to enforce the law against running red lights. Lawmakers made certain that Virginians would not be barred from entering a day-care center with a loaded gun. And the House is poised to reject an effort to restrict teenagers' use of cell phones while driving.
...
This week, by a 71 to 24 vote, the House approved a proposal by Del. Dick Black (R-Loudoun) requiring the state to investigate all Virginians who want to adopt a child to see "whether the petitioner is known to engage in current voluntary homosexual activity or is unmarried and cohabiting with another adult."
...
Surely there must be some logic that explains why self-professed conservatives will stop at nothing to protect our rights regarding guns, cars and property, but think nothing of poking into our bedrooms and examining our undergarments.
quote: What are you talking about? Didn't Jeff Foxworthy teach you anything? Those in the black community were just the ones that decided to put underwear on first.
*snort*
That was the funniest thing I've seen all day. Thanks!
quote: Considering the underwear these kids wear is generally boxers, which covers far more than a bathing suit would, and that even then the underwear isn't completely exposed, it's hard to imagine what's particularly "lewd" about it.
Where do you live? Maybe the boys are usually wearing boxers, but where I teach, the girls wear low riding pants with thongs. I would welcome such a law, because I know that if I ever tried to enforce the dress code so I won't be distracted, I would be accused of "looking where I shouldn't be looking."
In fact, given the behavior of the girls I see dressed like this, they're actively daring me to say something. I've asked adminstrators what I should do, and I've been told to ignore it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That people who were not black started doing it shortly thereafter does not mean that it wasn't primarily a "black" fashion trend at first.
Okay, fine. So the trend originated with blacks. I daresay it's been many years since they had a monopoly on the trend, and I don't see what's racial about it now. Blacks originated rock and roll, too, but no one ever claims that those anti-rock religious fundamentalists are trying to hurt blacks in their attempts to ban the music. (If anyone's even bothering with that one anymore.)
quote:Unfortunately, with roughly 75% of Richmond, and 60% of Norfolk being black, it will affect them more there.
If a higher pecentage of blacks is affected, that's only because there is a higher percentage there to be affected. That doesn't mean it was anyone's intention to target them specifically. I wonder what percentage of those blacks dress that way anyhow. I'd wager a small sum that most of them do not.
quote:Where do you live? Maybe the boys are usually wearing boxers, but where I teach, the girls wear low riding pants with thongs.
Anchorage, Alaska. I never see girls wearing low-riding pants with thongs underneath. I'm not saying we don't have it here, just that I never see it. I see plenty of guys with low-riders and boxers underneath. Perhaps my opinion is skewed by my location. But from what I've seen, I don't see where there's a problem big enough to justify legislation.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
