Hey, At Least They’re Wearing Clothes!

Remove all ads!

Although I do dislike the whole 'low-riding' (at least what we call it in NZ, no not cars with hydrolics) look I can't understand why fines should be imposed. As long as people aren't walking around naked I don't mind. And if they're attractive females and walking around naked I still don't mind.

If people want to dress like idiots then let them. I find it to be a good way of judging someone's character before actually having to talk to them.

 

Well some of us don't enjoy watching ourselves on the mirror all the time.

Well I'm a bit confused now. Do you think that this should be made illegal or are you just judging it as something "distasteful". If you want it to be illegal then where do you draw the line when it becomes a fashion statement and when it's careless dressing?

I'll echo Splunge on this one (except the part about encouraging all to take their clothes off, I'm no nudist ). I find your logic in that statement just weird.

 

Neither do I!

 

I hate doing this.

People have the right to wear their pants this way if they want to. There is nothing indecent about it.

Besides, we should all be thankful they do, it helps us identify them for what they are...and if they aren't a part of that subculture they should stop their false advertising. It is really easy, just pull your pants up!

By the way, before I get flamed, that is not a racist statement.

It is a culturally bigoted statement. This has nothing to do with race, as it is not just members of one race who are wearing their pants this way.

 

Its very trashy but then again, I used to wear shell suits in my early teenage years!

 

Lightning strikes twice! I agree with Darkwolf!

Especially with the identity part. If you fine someone for wearing their pants differently we might as well cut the foreplay and let the government supply us with our, "morally acceptable uniforms."

Let people be trashy, let people be prude.

As a side note... if you (khazadman, chev) get so bent out of shape over seeing someone's underwear, how do you ever go to the beach (pool, etc.)?

 

I must admit to appearing with my trousers in said postition quite often recently. However, this is not a fashion statement, it seems that attending university has caused a (fairly surprisingly) rapid reduction in girth, and as such, I need to procure either some new trousers or a belt that actually fits.

 

Uh! Uh! Uh! Uh! *winks urgently from the last bench*

I know it! I know it!

[imposting chevalier] We aren't talking about people who behave naturally in a given environment. When you visit a beach you can expect to find someone wearing trunks or underwear (mind you, only acceptable during the act of changing from normal to bathing clothes. Abominable in all other circumstances.).

You don't, however, expect to find someone wearing underwear while taking a light-hearted stroll through the city. There's a place and time for everything. Play according to the rules and I'm fine.

Oh, and I don't visit nudist beaches, thank you so very much. [/imposting chevalier]

 

The thing is - and this regardless of your personal opinion on how people dress - it's completely unenforceable. Based on most state laws something that is "lewd or indecent" means something that reveals your genitals, your buttocks, or in the case of women, their breasts. Provided these are not exposed, I don't see how it can be classified as lewd or indecent. The one possible exception I can see in this is if the underwear in question is a thong. Thongs do in fact reveal a good portion of one's backside, so maybe in that case, but good luck prosecuting people wearing boxers.

@DW - your comment certainly isn't racial - I've seen people of all different races dress in this manner.

 

I think it is discriminating to us fat people! I have to wear my pants low so my gut can hang over them! If it is only my underwear showing in the back people should be grateful!

 

Here's an idea: say you're in Virginia, and there's this dude you don't like, and you see a cop walking around the corner...

...give the dude a wedgie and he gets fined $50!

 

Easy, grandpa Splunge. The problem is not with it actually covering their genitals (thank for those boxers being there rather than thin air), but with how low the trousers are worn. It's only the underwear which keeps the private parts from showing and underwear is also private to a great extent.

At least I'm the only guy I watch this way.

Seriously, though, some people on the street indeed look as if they had never seen a mirror in their life. Either that or as if they didn't care at all. Not caring about your looks when you go public is offensive.

Good question. My biggest problem with it is it being distasteful. It can be lewd because of the sloppiness. Heck, I don't mind only a thong as much as I mind a thong showing from under low trousers. It's lewd in a distasteful way because it's messy.

I don't think it should be illegal in the sense of showing up in your sex offence record or get you into jail. But a fine is just fine. Where I draw a line is not careless dressing as in someone not caring how he or she looks when showing up in public, but something more along the lines of unintended exposure. If you don't care if it shows or not, it isn't unintended (it's just a special kind of intent and lawyers call it dolus eventualis ). But if just a border of the boxers or panties shows when someone's sitting down which doesn't show normally, it's probably unintended. However, if half an ass shows and a couple of inches of a thong, it's probably intended and yes, this is indencent and possibly even lewd. If it's someone's casual not so presentable underwear, it's worse than indecent: it's distasteful.

OK, OK, I admit that lewd is objectively worse than distasteful as it corrupts people at all, but distasteful pisses me off to a much greater extent.

Perhaps my explanation above has already helped. If not, I'll just say that underwear is not supposed to be the only thing between your eye and someone's private parts. Clothing needs to cover underwear completely and underwear needs to cover private parts completely.

And, personally, I mind the thong and half a female bottom, or worse, some crappy unpresentable underwear showing, much more than I do a transparent blouse without underwear underneath (the popularity of it is decreasing, anyway) - the latter is not always distasteful. But thong and half a bottom showing is always distasteful, except maybe a beach thong sticking out when the girl puts on some trousers before getting out of the beach. It's quite reasonable, so it isn't as distasteful. Otherwise, it always or nearly always is.

No, not at all. Consult Darkthrone on this one.

How do you visualise that? You mean, seeing people's underwear when they're changing on the beach? Heck, they should wear their swimsuits as underwear if they are living close, or go to a restroom or get a towel around themselves. I don't want to see their underwear. The boxers, briefs and bras worn on the beach need to be presentable. I don't want to see people in fatigued white briefs, thank you very much.

If it's summer, I don't really care if they are wearing boxers instead of normal trousers - although they'd better wear something at least knee-long if they're male. I don't care if they're wearing shorts if they're female, or a swimsuit bra as their only top. So long as it's presentable and it doesn't look like regular underwear. Regular underwear is still gross. A regular bra with lace border is much more gross than even two triangles of opaque fabric connected by a thin cord, which I only really mind if the chest is not presentable of itself.

I don't really care, so I don't go there. I don't think it's abominable so long as pervs are kept out of there. But nude sunbathing I'd rather do privately. I'm more of the "who cares" mind on this one unless the sexual tension factor comes in or the scandalising other people factor, making one responsible for wearing or not wearing something.

If we recognise underwear as private - and it surely is more private than trousers or shirt - then we could classify unmerited and unjustified display of it as indecent. Lewd if counted on inciting sexual tension. But it's always and I mean always trashy. And it makes me want to puke. I'm going to need to carry plastic bags with me if more people start walking around like that.

 

I can honestly say I wear my pants baggy. Nowheres near as baggy as some people I know, but baggy none-the-less. I find it much, much more comfortable, and because of this I guess I'll never go to Virginia .

 

listen, the bottom line is that if people want to wear their cloths like that, then let them, if you dont like it, dont look!

 

Suprisingly, that was very well put.

 

Don't worry, chev - you'll get over it eventually.

Imagine - Senators from Virginia actually having some common sense. Who'd've thunk it?

A "very important issue"? Good grief, don't these people have anything else to worry about?

 

What if their clothes smelled?

"Listen, the bottom line is that if people want to wear their cloths like that, then let them, if you don't like it, don't sniff!"?

 

I'm quite certain this won't be the last brilliant idea that goes to the senate from these chuckle-heads around here.

Of course, this bill might get put back on the table if Senator Kenneth Stolle gets stuck in a line behind Skid-Mark Joe.

Never underestimate the power of barber shop banter!

 

Well I guess you can never know untill you hear the public's opinion about something and not everyone knows what the majority of people want.