http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument





There's been many local ordinances about "saggy pants" around the USA lately most recently in Pine Lawn, MO wherever that is. I've literally seen dudes walking down the street with only one hand because they needed the other to hold up the pants. No chance of this guy having any chance in a scrap because if the pants go to the ankles he will be in a very vulnerable position but you'll have to act quick. So that's cool. Also, attacking a jerk while urinating is recommended. The streaming urine renders most people useless for a moment, even thugs. It's a shame that ever crossed my mind though. I prolly have walked around with a bit of underwear showing mostly because my shirt was short (not a 5XXXXXL), however, some displays I have seen are completely unacceptable. Here's the kicker....anyone who is against a "saggy pants" law can easily be described simply as a "fuddy duddy" who just doesn't get it. Saggy pants have been around fifteen years easy.



I don't even know how I feel about this. Whatever, I guess....it just gets out of control even though it's most likely just another way for whitey to stick to the young black male.



This is just a slightly drinky/jokey way to discuss a very serious subject.

Uhhhh might want to be careful with this one. I sense a race-based lock coming to this thread fairly quickly.

ok ok the "attack while urinating" part was totally uncalledfor....I've just always remembered someone telling me that...stream of conciousness fun..

I was talking about

even though it's most likely just another way for whitey to stick to the young black male.

more than anything else.

^I see plenty of milky white suburban saggers too, maybe not in Pine Lawn though.



In any case, I just don't get how bangers would think this is a good idea. I thought street smarts told you that you need to always be able to run in an instant, whether from other bangers, the po-po, whatever. Seems like having to hold up your pants, or having your pants around your ankles, would greatly limit this ability. And, where do you keep your piece if all of your pockets and your 'waistband' are down around your knees?

I believe all of the participants in this case (the Pine Lawn mayor and the majority of his residents) are Black. It's more a generational issue -- youthful rebellion against the order and rules of adults.

It's a good thing I don't wear pants.



-RBB

What a ridiculous law.

do they really need a new law - why not just slap them with indecent exposure? I assume that was already illegal

leeharveyawesome wrote:ok ok the "attack while urinating" part was totally uncalledfor....I've just always remembered someone telling me that...stream of conciousness fun..

Pun intended?

I agree with Doug about what should be done and what shouldn't be done by the government. Saggy pants are also not just limited to one race. I myself do not like look of saggy pants so I don't wear my pants like that. Its a fashion trend. Not everyone is going to like it but outlaw it? Thats just getting into people's life way to much. In fact most of the people that I see wearing saggy pants now have like gym shorts on. So if they aren't showing their bare a$$ than by all means continue with what you are doing.

This country is becoming a ***** police state

Doug wrote:I don't support the government telling people what to dress. If a community doesn't approve then let them preach to the youth through other means. This is unconstitutional anyway.

Sagging is a hideous fashion, but I agree that the law is excessive. If there are any private body parts showing, then I'm sure that there are already laws on the books that cover that.

The saggy pants phenomenon is part and parcel of the thug persona, which originated in prisons and is associated with violence, drugs and crime. What community wants to be associated with this? However, the constitutionality and enforceability of such laws seem a bit murky.



Although many might think it's "whitey sticking it to the black male" they couldn't be more wrong. It turns out that most of this legislation has been initiated by African American officials who see this phenomenon as a prison mentality.



If you find the topic interesting, check out these articles:



- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html

- http://www.concurringopinions.com/archi ... and_1.html

I do believe that your pants should cover the crack of your ass. Call me a fuddy duddy if you want...

/probably shouldn't be saggin

Doug wrote:It doesn't matter if the trend started with gangs.

Good point about it not mattering where a clothing trend started. Marlon Brando and James Dean shocked America when they wore t-shirts (undershirts) on TV and the movies, but everyone wears t-shirts today without it being considered rebellious behavior.



That undershirt means that he beats his wife.

That's because Stanley did beat his wife.



Ridiculous to pass laws on fashion. Exposed body parts are already against law.

Xing wrote:

Doug wrote:I don't support the government telling people what to dress. If a community doesn't approve then let them preach to the youth through other means. This is unconstitutional anyway.

yup. I agree.

Well, except you're going against the wishes of black leaders who have pushed a majority of these laws. I just wonder why people outside of specific communities care to meddle so much in the communities of others. I do agree the law is kinda silly and it should be up to the parents to keep their children away from gang behavior...

This law is unconstitutional and won't make it past the circuit court. A law that restricts how people express themselves in clothing? What's next, a mandated return to wearing corsets and bowler hats? This law is a joke, even if the people its designed against look like slobs. If they're not interested in being taken seriously by...well anyone, thats their perogative.