Hey, At Least They’re Wearing Clothes!

Remove all ads!

It would appear that lawmakers in Virginia have too much time on their hands.

Source

What's next - jail sentences for women whose bra straps show?

 

I'm biased because I think those low-riding trousers / high riding underwear outfits look ridiculous. It's more a public safety issue that they're going trip over the own poorly fitting jeans and cause an accident. So, in that sense, it's just like other safety laws (e.g. the speed limit).

We need lawmakers to save people from themselves.

 

No, never! White suburban teenage girls are behind the visible bra strap trend. African-American teenage boys are behind the low-rise jeans trend, however, so it's fair game for Virginia lawmakers...

 

In my high school, there seems to be a number of normal suburban teenage boys who are smart, athletic, and let their boxers show because, apparently, it's a fashion statement. (I live 30 minutes from Virginia).

Seems like a quirky but unenforceable law.

[EDIT: okay, it's an insulting fashion statement. Or just a statement conveyed through clothing that is insulting. I wouldn't do it, but seeing an inch of someone's boxer's doesn't disturb me.]

[ February 09, 2005, 22:33: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

It's not a safety issue, people are just getting sick of these young punks. And it's not a fasion statement, it's an in your face insult.

 

Oh admit it splunge, you're one of those people and that's why you're upset.

Seriously though this is completely ridicolous. If some people won't bother to use a belt or have their belts too loose it really is their problem if they look a bit stupid. I don't see why this should be against the law.

 

That is so impractical. How do they expect to enforce that anyways? On second thought, maybe I'd rather not know.

 

In your face insult? Insult for what?

And why is it not a fashion statement?

And people should stop creating laws to prevent youth freedom. One day, the youth will be the ones in charge. What if they then decides to ban all squared pants because it is an in your face insult?

 

Don't be silly! They've got to ban navel-bearing first...THEN they go after the bra straps.

I heard about this on the radio this afternoon where it was said that it is highly unlikely that this bill will be approved by the state senate.

@Caleb - It may not be insulting, but it can be kinda gross when the perpetrator doesn't practice good hygiene!

 

Caleb, while I agree that restricting freedoms without sufficient need is no good, there is a difference between banning underwear exposure and, let's say, banning a certain colour or fabric.

The place of underwear is under one's trousers. It's underwear, after all.

Trousers should stay where they belong and not half way down one's pelvis. Guy who dress like that look like roaming beggars and women look like sluts (this is only because women tend to wear presentable underwear - otherwise they look like beggars, as well). It's awful and it offends me, as unclean clothes do. I don't talk to people who don't bother to keep tidy.

Let them all wear the damned belt. I'm not fully dressed without a belt.

 

Then let them! It doesn't hurt you or anyone else if someone wants to look like a beggar, so let them, for crying out loud.

 

...yeah chev; stay out of New Mexico for God's sake if you want to keep your sanity...

 

I'm with Caleb on this one. By what right do you or anyone else have to tell someone how they dress. To go around naked or revealing your more "private" parts is an exception of course, but other than that it's okay by me how people dress. Of course I don't feel comfortable around people with dirty clothes but then again I don't feel cofortable around people with bad breath, and I'm sure we can't force everyone to brush their teeth or take a regular mint to keep their breath fresh.

 

If you're against people being free to walk naked in public, you should already have one reason to outlaw underwear exposure.

I don't need to look on anyone's boxers other than mine. Except I don't wear boxers. Anyway, it's frowsy and unclean and I believe I have the right to demand people to dress decently and in a more or less tidy manner. I don't want them to walk around in transparent clothing, I don't want them to walk around in too tight clothing and I don't want them to show half their ass and an inch or five of some crappy underwear. It's not a fashion statement, it's a fashion rebellion statement and rebels have no right to except anything else than their pathetic rebellion being quelled.

And then perhaps they can finally finish puberty.

 

While I agree that the exposed underwear look is ridiculous, introducing a fine is even worse.

What I don't understand is the "lewd or indecent manner" part. Is it just the fact that you can see the underwear? If so, then they'd better start fining department stores for underwear-wearing mannequins, or for displaying see-through packages of underwear. And if it's something else, then I'd like to see a defintion that couldn't also be applied to, say, low-cut blouses or tight-fitting sweaters.

Edit:

So basically, you're saying that you have the right to demand not to be offended, according to your own personal view of what you find to be offensive. So if I don't like the colour blue, I should be able to demand that anyone wearing blue be fined?

 

For some strange reason I don't think so.

There is a huge difference in between walking around in underwear and exposing a small part of your underwear, I'm sure you realize that. Just because someone has been a little careless when dressing up himself in the morning that does not make it something that should be illegal.

Another thing in your posts is that you state what you want. Perhaps someone else wants to walk around in dirty clothes. What makes the thing that you want superior from what the guy who wants to walk around in dirty clothes wants? Especially when we're talking about what he wears.

It's definently decent to make sure that your underwear does not show but as I have stated earlier in another thread, there is a big difference between what is undecent and what should be illegal.

 

Oh, guess what? A motion went before the state senate in Georgia to make a similar law, only with more severe consequences. Gosh, I love my state.

 

We aren't speaking about people who happen to be careless on one day but about those who make "fashion statements".

There's also that tricky little device known as mirror.

We are actually not talking about what he wears, let alone especially that. We are talking about how he wears it.

It's not just my personal view that dirty clothes are bad or that incomplete outfits are bad, which is one. There's also a huge difference between wearing a certain colour and wearing your trousers in such a way that, if you weren't wearing those exposed boxers, your jewels would be showing.

 

And what about people who are just generally sloppy dressers? Or wear clothees that clash? Do you want to fine them as well?

OK, now I'm confused. You want to ban exposed underwear because it covers something up? Then let's ban pants while we're at it, because they're exposed, and they cover up underwear (if underwear is actually being worn) which, in turn, covers the genitals. Heck, let's ban clothes altogether!

 

Oh no, Splunge is a nudist! We should have known.