Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2011, 08:42:44 AM
-
http://www.bnd.com/2011/07/12/1783276/no-more-saggy-pants-in-collinsville.html
The ordinance forbids pants that sag more than 3 to 4 inches below the waistline of the underwear. A first offense is punishable with a $100 fine; a second offense would carry a $300 fine plus 40 hours of community service. The citation would not allow arrest or detainment.
Well done. Now for the delicious caterwauling of those who think they have a right to display their behinds in underpants. You have the floor...
-
The citation would not allow arrest or detainment.
So who is going to bother paying the fine or showing up for community service ???
-
So who is going to bother paying the fine or showing up for community service ???
I'm pretty sure failure to pay the fine may result in arrest or detainment. The process of getting the citation would not allow arrest or detainment, though, is my reading.
-
i think snatching drivers licenses would encourage the lil darlins
-
I'm pretty sure failure to pay the fine may result in arrest or detainment. The process of getting the citation would not allow arrest or detainment, though, is my reading.
Ah, that makes it all better then.
-
Ah, that makes it all better then.
Not saying it makes it all better. I'm saying it makes it enforceable.
I'm sure you're opposed to localities outlawing rude and indecent behavior. I'm not, though.
-
So the implicit threat of violence is still there. Carry on then.
-
So the implicit threat of violence is still there. Carry on then.
Yes. That's what the state is.
-
So the implicit threat of violence is still there. Carry on then.
As with any law. What's your point?
-
As with any law. What's your point?
Well. If you have no problem with threats of violence against people based on their clothing choice - not even people who are naked, but simply people who are fully dressed, except that their clothing exposes - not any naked body parts, but another article of clothing - carry on then.
-
Well. If you have no problem with threats of violence against people based on their clothing choice - not even people who are naked, but simply people who are fully dressed, except that their clothing exposes - not any naked body parts, but another article of clothing - carry on then.
Threats of eventual violence on locality enacted standards of behavior. Not a problem.
We're gonna bruise and bloody you and toss you out of town for saggy pants. A problem.
We're going to fine you, give a chance to rectify the disrespectful behavior and will eventually put you in jail if you don't pay the fine (which may involve bruising and bloodying you if you resist) is fine.
Again, that's what government does. Don't like those rules? Leave Collinsville. Wow, ONEROUS problem there.
-
Well. If you have no problem with threats of violence against people based on their clothing choice - not even people who are naked, but simply people who are fully dressed, except that their clothing exposes - not any naked body parts, but another article of clothing - carry on then.
Well, that's certainly a leap.
The law only applies to someone who exposes more than three vertical inches of their underoos. I'm ok with that.
Any threat of violence beyond that is just the usual treatment one expects for those who flout the law.
-
Again, that's what government does. Don't like those rules? Leave Collinsville. Wow, ONEROUS problem there.
Why does this calculus don't apply elsewhere?
Don't like X - leave the country! No problem.
-
First amendment violation.
This came up in another locality some years ago and the state judge gave the collective busy-bodies a verbal slapping for their efforts. One particular comment by the judge still stands out to me though: "...why would you want them to stop wearing ill-fitting and sagging jeans anyways? It makes it harder for them to run from the police."
Edit: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-17-fla-pants_N.htm
-
Why does this calculus don't apply elsewhere?
Don't like X - leave the country! No problem.
It doesn't apply elsewhere as most countries where that calculus applies don't allow you to leave the country.
I will note for you that that EXACT reason is how this nation (and, in some respects your own) was founded.
-
In other words: you do not have a problem with the violations of individual liberty that exist, say, in Europe, since Europe's Constitution allows them and Europeans are free to leave?
-
First amendment violation.
This came up in another locality some years ago and the state judge gave the collective busy-bodies a verbal slapping for their efforts. One particular comment by the judge still stands out to me though: "...why would you want them to stop wearing ill-fitting and sagging jeans anyways? It makes it harder for them to run from the police."
Pretty much this. I'm certainly not opposed to all public standards laws. But "showing too much underwear" is silly. Should women be compelled to have skirts no more than X inches above the knee? No more than Y percentage of cleavage exposed? I somehow imagine that should a Muslim community ever Free State Project a town and make failing to wear a burqa a crime even the most ardent states rights advocates would be unhappy with it.
I fully believe in states rights, but while they are more lenient than the fed.gov's they are not unlimited. But those rights are not unlimited. Utah cannot make Mormonism the official state religion and require non-LDS to pay double taxes. California cannot outright ban all firearms. Montana cannot make it legal to shoot on sight any member of the federal government. And so on and so on. "States rights" is not an excuse for violation of basic rights under color of law.
-
Pretty much this. I'm certainly not opposed to all public standards laws. But "showing too much underwear" is silly. Should women be compelled to have skirts no more than X inches above the knee? No more than Y percentage of cleavage exposed? I somehow imagine that should a Muslim community ever Free State Project a town and make failing to wear a burqa a crime even the most ardent states rights advocates would be unhappy with it.
I fully believe in states rights, but while they are more lenient than the fed.gov's they are not unlimited. But those rights are not unlimited. Utah cannot make Mormonism the official state religion and require non-LDS to pay double taxes. California cannot outright ban all firearms. Montana cannot make it legal to shoot on sight any member of the federal government. And so on and so on. "States rights" is not an excuse for violation of basic rights under color of law.
Wow. Who knew the right to walk around exposing your underwear was a basic human right.
-
There's no enumerated right to wear any specific article of clothing. Can the town mandate being seen in public without a tie illegal on pain of a $50 fine? If not, why?
-
Wow. Who knew the right to walk around exposing your underwear was a basic human right.
Would you be comfortable with a majority Muslim community requiring wearing the burqa? What clothing choices are a basic human right, and what are not? Requiring some form of clothing is fine, and reasonable. Having modesty police is not.
-
Would you be comfortable with a majority Muslim community requiring wearing the burqa? What clothing choices are a basic human right, and what are not? Requiring some form of clothing is fine, and reasonable. Having modesty police is not.
I would oppose a burqa requirement. I would not claim they are outside of the power of their locality to do it.
I bolded your contradiction here. Requiring "some form of clothing" is a modesty police. Are you ok with people walking with a**-less chaps? Cupless bras? Sheer pants?
If you are not, what are you, the modesty police?
-
In other words: you do not have a problem with the violations of individual liberty that exist, say, in Europe, since Europe's Constitution allows them and Europeans are free to leave?
I have a problem with every violation of civil liberties, sagging pants included.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Dressing that way is a CHOICE!!!11 so that makes it OK.
-
Sagging pants violate your civil liberties?
Is this some kind of magical right to not see things that you find aesthetically displeasing?
-
I would oppose a burqa requirement. I would not claim they are outside of the power of their locality to do it.
I bolded your contradiction here. Requiring "some form of clothing" is a modesty police. Are you ok with people walking with a**-less chaps? Cupless bras? Sheer pants?
If you are not, what are you, the modesty police?
You are making the same error the liberatrians do, in the opposite direction. Saying "No possible requirements can be made of public behaviour" is just as much an error as saying "Any requirements can be made and are legal."
I have a problem with every violation of civil liberties, sagging pants included.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Dressing that way is a CHOICE!!!11 so that makes it OK.
Are you seriously saying that being able to see someone's underwear is violating your rights? Really?
-
Sagging pants violate your civil liberties?
Is this some kind of magical right to not see things that you find aesthetically displeasing?
Are you serious? You think this is the only thing I find aesthetically displeasing?
-
This is an easy fix.....first and subsequent violations.....impound their underwear.....
....another problem solved.....
=D
-
You are making the same error the liberatrians do, in the opposite direction. Saying "No possible requirements can be made of public behaviour" is just as much an error as saying "Any requirements can be made and are legal."
Then what is your line for clothing requirements? Can I walk around in bikini briefs? Can a woman walk around in a micro-bikini? Or does it have to be tighty whities and panties + bra? Or does the clothing have to somewhat partially cover underwear?
My point is that the standards should be determined by the locality. Your point appears to be that your standards are right and everyone else is wrong (libertarians and "conservatives"). Why is your rather vague standard of "some form of clothing" the correct one?
(Note, I'm not saying that believing you are right and everyone else is wrong is an always incorrect position. I just want to know by what reasons you have come to that conclusion.)
-
Are you serious? You think this is the only thing I find aesthetically displeasing?
Perhaps a magical right not to see underwear?
Of course, if you remember our threads about public nudity, I suggested at the time the justifications for bans on public nudity could also be used to impose dress codes. I see I was right. I derive no pleasure from being right.
-
Perhaps a magical right not to see underwear?
Of course, if you remember our threads about public nudity, I suggested at the time the justifications for bans on public nudity could also be used to impose dress codes. I see I was right. I derive no pleasure from being right.
For a guy who posits magical rights to marry the same sex and kill babies, you don't have much room to talk. You have a right to move about in public, without having to view others' private parts, even if thinly veiled. If you want to call that a dress code, go ahead.
-
The ordinance forbids pants that sag more than 3 to 4 inches below the waistline of the underwear.
Easy solution: don't wear underwear! Then apparently you can 'sag' as much as you want. If anyone figures that out, we'll have gone to seeing Joe Boxers to Joe Butt-crack. :laugh:
-
An ad hominem, is it not?
You have a right to move about in public, without having to view others' private parts, even if thinly veiled. If you want to call that a dress code, go ahead.
These are the "thinly veiled private parts" in question:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fharlemworldblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fsagging-pants.jpg&hash=b15f585dc1a3bdaf9241af5d7ce967e9c2292907)
I'm sure you could guess there's a pair of buttocks in there somewhere...
Of course, Merriam-Webster defines dress code as:
"DRESS CODE: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dress%20code) formally or socially imposed standards of dress"
These are standards of dress, and these people are formally imposing them.
-
Of course bans on nudity are a dress code. And I have as little problem with that as I do requiring people to cover up their underwear.
-
Of course bans on nudity are a dress code. And I have as little problem with that as I do requiring people to cover up their underwear.
Ah, we're getting somewhere.
-
Micro,
The photo you posted appears to be within the law. I have seen pants sagging beneath the gluteal cleavage level on many occasions, so you won't get away with silly feints like that.
-
Micro,
The photo you posted appears to be within the law. I have seen pants sagging beneath the gluteal cleavage level on many occasions, so you won't get away with silly feints like that.
The law mandates a 7.5 centimeter to 10 centimeter level of 'sagging' as the maximum. This seems about as much as is seen on the image.
-
The law mandates a 7.5 centimeter to 10 centimeter level of 'sagging' as the maximum. This seems about as much as is seen on the image.
Sooo, you posted a picture that is pretty much legal.
I completely agree that any more than that is too much. (And that much is likely too much as well.)
-
The law mandates a 7.5 centimeter to 10 centimeter level of 'sagging' as the maximum. This seems about as much as is seen on the image.
Yes, so he's legal.
-
Sooo, you posted a picture that is pretty much legal.
I completely agree that any more than that is too much. (And that much is likely too much as well.)
Because of the definition of 7.5 to ten centimeters, he could also be fined. This is the trouble with these things. I predict lawsuits.
-
I appose this law just on the basis of don't the police have better thing to do than ticketing people over such silly behavior. We already have public decency laws, do we really need to make everything illegal? I though the majority of posters on this site disapproved of these type of meddling laws. ???
-
Because of the definition of 7.5 to ten centimeters, he could also be fined. This is the trouble with these things. I predict lawsuits.
The horror.
-
I'm amazed you guys are OK with a law that (apparently) has a 33 percent margin of error. Imagine if the law said a shotgun barrel had to be at least 14 to 18 inches long.
-
The horror.
On the contrary, I predict the town will lose said lawsuits.
-
I'm amazed you guys are OK with a law that (apparently) has a 33 percent margin of error. Imagine if the law said a shotgun barrel had to be at least 14 to 18 inches long.
Let's randomly impose percentages!!
You must pay between 15% and 20% of your income in taxes.
You may drive a maximum of 60-80 miles per hour!
Seriously, it's a range of an inch. Oh the ambiguity!
-
The horror of ambiguity!!! :O
-
From the OP:
The ordinance forbids pants that sag more than 3 to 4 inches below the waistline of the underwear. A first offense is punishable with a $100 fine; a second offense would carry a $300 fine plus 40 hours of community service. The citation would not allow arrest or detainment.
So, if a person isn't wearing underwear, is there a violation? If the person is wearing shorts, not underwear, under the sagging pants, is there a violation? Is underwear defined in the law? Is sagging defined?
Anyone have the text of the law?
-
I'm really surprised that a lot of you are ok with this. What exactly is being enforced? Would it be ok to wear no underwear and sag? Would it be ok to wear a pair of swimming trunks? That would be like the ultimate sag because you aren't wearing pants at all. How about shorts with no underwear. What if I wear just boxers and I have the front flap sowed up? What about pants that are made to look like you are sagging, they have fake boxers sticking out of the top that way you look like you are sagging but in reality you are not. What about wearing boxers outside the pants, superhero style. Why in the heck are sagging pants considered such an crime against humanity that there is an actual law being made!?
This is an outrage! [barf]
-
I'm amazed you guys are OK with a law that (apparently) has a 33 percent margin of error. Imagine if the law said a shotgun barrel had to be at least 14 to 18 inches long.
I don't quite understand that, either. It seems like a valid criticism.
I would assume that sagging pants sans underwear would constitute ome other public decency/nudity violation.
-
I'm sure that town/state already has an indecent exposure law. How is that defined and would it cover baggy britches?
-
Some of you might as well be lawyers.
-
Some of you might as well be lawyers.
Some of us don't tolerate ass-i-none ( =D) laws, even if we agree in principle.
-
Also, honestly, I view the passing of this law (and similar) as a failure of society and civilization.
Adults should be grabbing kids by their ears and making them pull up their pants. Of course, we can't do that anymore because the adult would be arrested for assault.
Society, not government, should be enforcing modesty. The fact that it can't (I note that it's enforcement powers have been usurped by the government) is a failure that our culture will suffer harm for.
Standards (including some for dress) are part of living in a civilized and polite society.
-
Then what is your line for clothing requirements? Can I walk around in bikini briefs? Can a woman walk around in a micro-bikini? Or does it have to be tighty whities and panties + bra? Or does the clothing have to somewhat partially cover underwear?
My point is that the standards should be determined by the locality. Your point appears to be that your standards are right and everyone else is wrong (libertarians and "conservatives"). Why is your rather vague standard of "some form of clothing" the correct one?
(Note, I'm not saying that believing you are right and everyone else is wrong is an always incorrect position. I just want to know by what reasons you have come to that conclusion.)
I posit that any infringement on free speech (or exercise of religion, or RKBA etc) should be held to the strictest scrutiny. And this rather obviously fails that test.
-
I posit that any infringement on free speech (or exercise of religion, or RKBA etc) should be held to the strictest scrutiny. And this rather obviously fails that test.
So why are people required to wear clothes?
-
So why are people required to wear clothes?
It passes strict scrutiny? I would have thought that would be obvious. There is a sufficient justification, it is narrowly tailored, and the infringement is minimal. This law has none of those things.
-
It passes strict scrutiny? I would have thought that would be obvious. There is a sufficient justification, it is narrowly tailored, and the infringement is minimal. This law has none of those things.
How so?
-
How so?
How are anti-nudity laws able to pass strict scrutiny, or why does this one not?
On the first point: public nudity causes harm (I know Micro doesn't agree with this, but since you do I don't feel the need to expound), requiring some form of clothing is an obvious and long standing and (in Western civ.) universal requirement, it can be written in an extremely narrow way, it is easily and clearly enforceable, and it does the very least damage possible while preventing the harm.
Seeing someone's underwear causes no substantial harm (the "thinly veiled genitalia" argument is crap, as nothing on the books prevents someone wearing skin tight jeans that present outlines of genitalia far more obviously than sagging pants, nor are there laws against plumbers crack), it is vaguely written and allows for extremely selective enforcement, and it was obviously written for reasons other than those stated.
It's like the difference between requiring ID to vote, and having a literacy test to vote. One is acceptable and necessary, one is a thinly veiled attempt to harrass people local .gov does not like.
-
It passes strict scrutiny? I would have thought that would be obvious. (1)There is a sufficient justification, (2)it is narrowly tailored, and (3)the infringement is minimal. This law has none of those things.
(1) That is a values judgement. All you are saying is "I agree with these values".
(2) How is "don't have your pants sagging to reveal your underwear" not narrowly tailored?
(3) Again, how is "don't have your pants sagging in order to reveal your underwear" not minimal?
-
Seeing someone's underwear causes no substantial harm (the "thinly veiled genitalia" argument is crap, as nothing on the books prevents someone wearing skin tight jeans that present outlines of genitalia far more obviously than sagging pants,
+100
If anything should be banned, its those gawd awful speedo banana hammocks that disgusting old men seem to LOVE at the beach. But I'm not about to try and legislate those away, they don't really bother me that much. Shouldn't banana hammocks be targeted first if this is really about "decency". I mean I can see the clearly see the outline of that guys junk, IN FRONT OF CHILDREN!!! Or what about those sport bras women wear running, their pretty much ONLY wearing a bra!
This law is obviously aimed at "urban youths". I don't see any laws about "whale tails" will that be next, or is this law just an excuse to harass a specific subset of people.
-
Seeing someone's underwear causes no substantial harm (the "thinly veiled genitalia" argument is crap, as nothing on the books prevents someone wearing skin tight jeans that present outlines of genitalia far more obviously than sagging pants, nor are there laws against plumbers crack), it is vaguely written and allows for extremely selective enforcement, and it was obviously written for reasons other than those stated.
OK, what are the stated reasons, and what are the obvious ulterior motives?
Why wouldn't a law against nudity be enforceable, if a person is intentionally showing "crack"? Isn't that part of what nudity laws are meant to prohibit?
-
This law is obviously aimed at "urban youths". I don't see any laws about "whale tails" will that be next, or is this law just an excuse to harass a specific subset of people.
The specific subset who sag their pants? They should be "harassed."
If whale tail is showing, it's usually above the private parts, not around them.
-
(2) How is "don't have your pants sagging to reveal your underwear" not narrowly tailored?
To me it seems way too vague. Although I don't care for the new "style", the law seems to be written specifically to allow selective enforcement. Combine that with the idea that guys drawers that are the only sort of underwear that is capable of offending, and I think it's a bad idea.
-
Also, honestly, I view the passing of this law (and similar) as a failure of society and civilization.
Adults should be grabbing kids by their ears and making them pull up their pants. Of course, we can't do that anymore because the adult would be arrested for assault.
Society, not government, should be enforcing modesty. The fact that it can't (I note that it's enforcement powers have been usurped by the government) is a failure that our culture will suffer harm for.
Standards (including some for dress) are part of living in a civilized and polite society.
Ayup.
Thing is, as more & more will not discipline themselves, folks will find other, less discriminating ways to impose some semblance of discipline.
-
Combine that with the idea that guys drawers that are the only sort of underwear that is capable of offending, and I think it's a bad idea.
I don't see anything indicating that women get a pass on this one. Does it only apply to males?
-
Ayup.
Thing is, as more & more will not discipline themselves, folks will find other, less discriminating ways to impose some semblance of discipline.
Hopefully such disciplinarians run into someone who is willing and able to 'discipline' them right back.
-
Discipline them about what? Protecting their rights from flashers?
-
Until I read this thread, I had no idea what a 'whale tail' was. Now, thanks to this thread and Google, I know. :cool:
-
Discipline them about what? Protecting their rights from flashers?
Put it this way - remember the burqa comparison in this thread?
If you were traveling somewhere and were accosted by ruffians because your wife was not wearing a burqa, I know precisely what your response would be.
I see no difference between what you are suggesting and such ruffians.
-
I see no difference between what you are suggesting and such ruffians.
You refuse to see the difference, even though you know there at least two huge, gaping holes in your comparison.
But, yes, I agree that the problem is on your end.
-
The specific subset who sag their pants? They should be "harassed."
I think this sums up Fistful on this subject right there. Someone give him an M1 so he can practice the "Get off my Lawn!" line.
-
You refuse to see the difference, even though you know there at least two huge, gaping holes in your comparison.
But, yes, I agree that the problem is on your end.
If you believe people wearing boxers (under a set of loose pants) is somehow suggestive of genitals that may be hidden somewhere under a pile of ill-fitting clothing (there's a reason these pants are called 'sagging' and it's not because they fit tight) to the point you may physically assault the other person, I fear we have little to discuss here.
-
I don't see anything indicating that women get a pass on this one. Does it only apply to males?
Haven't seen the text of the law, so I'm just going by the media's interpretation of it. That's certainly fraught with danger.
Anyway, my point was not that boys are prohibited from showing their drawers but girls aren't. It's that this whole thing is about style. Right now it is stylish for young women to wear outfits that show feet, not inches, of bra strap. Other than preference, can anyone tell me how that is any different in principle than a young man displaying the top three inches of his boxers?
I just don't think our government should be in the position of deciding which fashion is legal.
-
OK, fistful....harass this....
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.downrange.tv%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D7794.0%3Battach%3D7905%3Bimage&hash=a28dfb4dc68a52603bc5e0a2f2e1d21f36b544f7)
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7794.0;attach=7905;image (http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7794.0;attach=7905;image)
=D
-
The dinosaur doesn't look like it's wearing pants at all - saggy or otherwise.
-
The dinosaur doesn't look like it's wearing pants at all - saggy or otherwise.
Dinosaur? I don't see no stinking dinosaur... ???
(No, seriously, though, I didn't even notice Godzilla there in the background until you said something...)
-
If whale tail is showing, it's usually above the private parts, not around them.
What about the sports bra comparison? We can't have women running around wearing just bra's! Their not even wearing shirts!! How is that ok, but a little sag in your pants so people can see your boxers needs to legislated against!
Just look at the pic seeker posted, there's more nudity from her cleavage than from what you see when some guy lets their pants sag.
On second though, perhaps I agree with you. I say next we form a Cleavage Police, if there is more than 10% of your total BSA (breast surface area) is showing you get ticketed.
and then I apply for the position . . . . he he he >:D
-
What if your boxers are pulled up higher than your pants?
What if your pants are down 2 inches from your waistline and the boxers are up 2 inches?
-
I'm heading to the city counsel this week to ask that they ban the public display of religious clothing, as I find it "displeasing".
-
I'm heading to the city counsel this week to ask that they ban the public display of religious clothing, as I find it "displeasing".
You can agitate for any law you want, in an open society like ours. You can try to argue that religious clothing (whatever that may be) is somehow comparable to half-naked heinies. If you can find a sufficient number of people to agree that the public has a right to protect themselves from it, you could eventually see this right recognized. That's how the system is designed to work.
-
You can agitate for any law you want, in an open society like ours. You can try to argue that religious clothing (whatever that may be) is somehow comparable to half-naked heinies. If you can find a sufficient number of people to agree that the public has a right to protect themselves from it, you could eventually see this right recognized. That's how the system is designed to work.
So you would roll over and take it if the majority of your community banned you from displaying religious clothing?
-
I'm heading to the city counsel this week to ask that they ban the public display of religious clothing, as I find it "displeasing".
Please define "religious clothing" as it pertains to your argument.....
...in the Bible, Christians are taught to dress "modestly"....does this mean that you want everyone to dress like a skank?....because, if you do, I never want you to post self-pics on Facebook again.... [barf]
-
Please define "religious clothing" as it pertains to your argument.....
...in the Bible, Christians are taught to dress "modestly"....does this mean that you want everyone to dress like a skank?....because, if you do, I never want you to post self-pics on Facebook again.... [barf]
For the sake of this argument, anything that displays Chrisitian symbology (cross, Jesus) or biblical references (WWJD, bible verses). While we're at it, those annoying little fishes, and any bumper stickers that display your religious affiliation.
-
For the sake of this argument, anything that displays Chrisitian symbology (cross, Jesus) or biblical references (WWJD, bible verses). While we're at it, those annoying little fishes, and any bumper stickers that display your religious affiliation.
So, you're limiting it to just ONE religion?.......
-
So you would roll over and take it if the majority of your community banned you from displaying religious clothing?
Those holy undershorts have got to go!:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.junkdrawerblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fholey-shorts.jpg&hash=f507aec653e78e77e5921f2cc193e8b939e5718d)
-
You can agitate for any law you want, in an open society like ours. You can try to argue that religious clothing (whatever that may be) is somehow comparable to half-naked heinies. If you can find a sufficient number of people to agree that the public has a right to protect themselves from it, you could eventually see this right recognized. That's how the system is designed to work.
This law does not prohibit that.
Look, this law is not about public decency. You can go in public wearing nothing but boxers, and this law does not apply. You can wear soccer shorts (which are basically boxers made of a different material) and it's legal. You can wear a mini-skirt and a low cut belly shirt that actually reveals skin. This law does nothing to address concerns over anatomy being exposed. All it does it target one particular style of clothes favored by a particular cultural sub set. It's a transparent attempt to harrass one specific sultural group.
-
(1) That is a values judgement. All you are saying is "I agree with these values".
(2) How is "don't have your pants sagging to reveal your underwear" not narrowly tailored?
(3) Again, how is "don't have your pants sagging in order to reveal your underwear" not minimal?
(1) All laws are moral judgements. Saying "this law is good" or "that law is bad" will always be a values judgement, it's a tautology.
(2) It does not address the concerns it claims to. Iirc the actual language the courts use to decide this sort of thing is "as narrowly tailored as possible to fufill the .gov's interests" or some such.
(3) It is not a valid public interest. And yes, I realize that is a value judgement. Your defense of it is a value judgement. So what? "Communism is an inherently evil .gov system" is a value judgement. All discussions of laws are value judgements.
-
This wouldn't be such a big issue if we lived in a free society where all land is privately owned. You wouldn't have all these "public" beaches, parks, streets, etc. The owner would set the rules, including the dress code -- period. No bitching about rights being violated, no bitching about disrespectful dress. If you want to go around nekkid, you just have to avoid the places that prohibit you from being there nekkid. If you don't like all the nekkid people on your neighbor's nude beach, don't go there, and for god's sake, don't bring your kids there or they might learn what a nude human figure looks like!!!!omfg!!!!!
In the current state of our society, in which so much of our land is government-owned "commons" where everyone has a right to be, I think there should be no laws on dress code. I don't think it in any way impairs the liberty of anyone if someone decides to walk around nude, and so it could never be considered a threat that someone could legitimately defend themselves against with force. People with such delicate sensibilities that they can't stand the sight of a nude human figure should just stay away from public places, and those disgusting art museums as well. If you want to protect your kid from seeing such things, keep them at home. Your delicate sensibilities (even if they stem from a long cultural and religious tradition of delicate sensibilities) are not a moral sanction to force others to accommodate them.
I tend to think that a lot of the objections to repealing public nudity laws stem from the same type of fear that causes people to object to repealing laws prohibiting the carry of firearms. "It will be like the wild west out there, and you will see some perv shaking his junk at you on every street corner!" As usual, reality does not tend to live up to these hysterical expectations. The State of Vermont does not prohibit public nudity. The only nudity that you occasionally see there are college kids sitting out by the road trying to be rebellious and piss off old folks, and most of them tend to be hot women.
-
So, you're limiting it to just ONE religion?.......
For the sake of my counter argument, yes.
-
For the sake of my counter argument, yes.
Then my counter-arguement would be that your law would be overturned based on First Amendment (free exercise) and civil rights grounds.....
...if you can prove that baggy pants/exposed underwear is somehow protected by the COTUS, then you might actually have a point....
-
Then my counter-arguement would be that your law would be overturned based on First Amendment (free exercise) and civil rights grounds.....
...if you can prove that baggy pants/exposed underwear is somehow protected by the COTUS, then you might actually have a point....
How would choice of dress in public not be?
-
Then my counter-arguement would be that your law would be overturned based on First Amendment (free exercise) and civil rights grounds.....
...if you can prove that baggy pants/exposed underwear is somehow protected by the COTUS, then you might actually have a point....
This brings up a point I hadn't noticed. Many people say this is a free speech issue.
What speech are the people exposing the underwear engaging in? Doesn't there have to be some message for there to be speech, whether communicated with words or images? (I'm asking this in ignorance, what is the current jurisprudence on speech, must there be content for it to be counted as speech?)
-
This brings up a point I hadn't noticed. Many people say this is a free speech issue.
What speech are the people exposing the underwear engaging in? Doesn't there have to be some message for there to be speech, whether communicated with words or images? (I'm asking this in ignorance, what is the current jurisprudence on speech, must there be content for it to be counted as speech?)
Is clothing choice an issue of freedom of speech?
Goto a job interview in a beer stained wife beater, cargo shorts, and flip flops. Then come back and tell us if clothing makes a statement and is a way of communicating.
-
Is clothing choice an issue of freedom of speech?
Goto a job interview in a beer stained wife beater, cargo shorts, and flip flops. Then come back and tell us if clothing makes a statement and is a way of communicating.
I could show up in a clown suit too. I'm communicating a specific message by my choice of clothes in a job interview: i.e. I take this seriously or I don't take this seriously. I can express the meaning of that message in words, even if I am not using words.
What is the message being communicated by sagging your pants?
(Also, my question about first amendment jurisprudence still stands, if anyone knows the answer.)
-
So you would roll over and take it if the majority of your community banned you from displaying religious clothing?
Only to the same extent that you expect me to roll over and accept saggy pants-ed men in public. My actual point had to do with the fact that, in any democratic or representative system, the bill of rights is ultimately based on majority rule. So a culture sufficiently degraded might ban a cross necklace, or (as in most of America) recognize a right to indecent exposure.
In other words, your argument was bogus.
-
This law does not prohibit that.
Look, this law is not about public decency. You can go in public wearing nothing but boxers, and this law does not apply. You can wear soccer shorts (which are basically boxers made of a different material) and it's legal. You can wear a mini-skirt and a low cut belly shirt that actually reveals skin. This law does nothing to address concerns over anatomy being exposed. All it does it target one particular style of clothes favored by a particular cultural sub set. It's a transparent attempt to harrass one specific sultural group.
You've confirmed the legality of these things, in Collinsville?
I agree with you that the law should go a little further, and ban ultra-short skirts or shorts, if they reveal underpants below the hemline.
This notion about harassing one subculture doesn't wash, though. It has certainly spread beyond the demographic set you have in mind.
-
If you really consider being able to see someone's underpants as indecent exposure, I really don't think there is a point to this conversation. I take it you also see all female bathing suits as indecent exposure?
-
This brings up a point I hadn't noticed. Many people say this is a free speech issue.
What speech are the people exposing the underwear engaging in? Doesn't there have to be some message for there to be speech, whether communicated with words or images? (I'm asking this in ignorance, what is the current jurisprudence on speech, must there be content for it to be counted as speech?)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fiae.org%2FMalevich%2520-%2520Suprematism.JPG&hash=e5c42b9a58d902df5c15fb55f4cf0287f2acf840)
-
How would choice of dress in public not be?
I'm just stating that your example is probably not the best one that you could use for your argument....maybe you could use a different example for your starting point.....like outlawing the use of black socks with sandals.....
....or outlawing the wearing of open-toe, strappy stilletto heels in public because they infer sexual intentions..... ;)
-
Every anti-sagger here seems to be avoiding the sports bra comparison.
What are you all sexist?
:P
-
Every anti-sagger here seems to be avoiding the sports bra comparison.
What are you all sexist?
:P
Probably because that, with a couple of notable exceptions, any member of APS caught wearing a sports bra should be arrested..... [tinfoil]
-
If you believe people wearing boxers (under a set of loose pants) is somehow suggestive of genitals that may be hidden somewhere under a pile of ill-fitting clothing...
I don't. That's not what we're talking about here. Here are links to some pictures. This has nothing to do with clothing that "suggests genitalia." This is what I see on an almost daily basis.
http://i.acdn.us/image/A9694/96948/300_96948.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRublTzliKhn9ar_XrzqRnWugFg3PK66KQXit2zBMXEPEdAdVnFfw
If you believe people wearing boxers (under a set of loose pants) is somehow suggestive of genitals that may be hidden somewhere under a pile of ill-fitting clothing (there's a reason these pants are called 'sagging' and it's not because they fit tight) to the point you may physically assault the other person, I fear we have little to discuss here.
The opposite is the case. You are the one who draws a parallel between being "accosted by ruffians" and being cited by a police officer. Then you say I want to physically assault people. We obviously can't have a discussion if you're going to make things up about me.
There is the additional problem of trying to compare a burqa to simply wearing one's pants at something approaching waist level. That just doesn't make sense.
-
In the images you link to above, how are the people any more "indecent" than a person just wearing soccer shorts? They show more skin and are tighter fitting. I'm really confused as to what is revealed in those photos you linked that you feel is indecent?
-
People with such delicate sensibilities that they can't stand the sight of a nude human figure should just stay away from public places, and those disgusting art museums as well. If you want to protect your kid from seeing such things, keep them at home.
Thanks for helping my argument. It's clear which of us has the more reasonable request, at least with regard to nudity. You illustrate perfectly why public nudity laws exist.
I tend to think that a lot of the objections to repealing public nudity laws stem from the same type of fear that causes people to object to repealing laws prohibiting the carry of firearms. "It will be like the wild west out there, and you will see some perv shaking his junk at you on every street corner!" As usual, reality does not tend to live up to these hysterical expectations. The State of Vermont does not prohibit public nudity. The only nudity that you occasionally see there are college kids sitting out by the road trying to be rebellious and piss off old folks, and most of them tend to be hot women.
So in the absence of laws against public nudity, there is public nudity. But don't worry, it's only occasional, and right next to public thoroughfares! :laugh:
You can wear a mini-skirt and a low cut belly shirt that actually reveals skin. This law does nothing to address concerns over anatomy being exposed.
What about the sports bra comparison? We can't have women running around wearing just bra's! Their not even wearing shirts!! How is that ok, but a little sag in your pants so people can see your boxers needs to legislated against!
Just look at the pic seeker posted, there's more nudity from her cleavage than from what you see when some guy lets their pants sag.
There seems to be a misconception that the law can't be valid unless we pretend that the back of some guy's underwear is equivalent to some girl's mid-riff. Or unless we pretend that undergarments are the same as outerwear. And, hey, maybe I don't think women (or men) should feel free to go shirtless. I wear an undershirt and a t-shirt, with long pants, when I run. And I hate hot weather more than anyone, so I wouldn't have much patience for whining about such a requirement.
If you really consider being able to see someone's underpants as indecent exposure, I really don't think there is a point to this conversation. I take it you also see all female bathing suits as indecent exposure?
Obviously, some of them are. Maybe this would be easier, if we could reconsider what should really be acceptable in public, and what shouldn't. Not that I want to ban everything that might be unacceptable, or that I don't like. But there's a huge difference between banning saggy drawers that reveal (a lot of) underwear, and banning, say, some of the more conservative women's one-piece swimsuits. One is socially acceptable and intended for outer wear. Practically speaking, there's no chance those will be banned, without a major shift in what our culture considers acceptable. (Or sports bras, or male toplessness.) (Not to mention that swim-wear could be restricted to pools, beaches, etc.)
Now some will insist that government has to be based on rights and facts, and so on, not on cultural norms or societal expectations. Such ideas are extremely naive. The concepts are not separable. I believe our laws should be limited to protecting the rights of the people. And that's all I'm talking about.
-
In the images you link to above, how are the people any more "indecent" than a person just wearing soccer shorts? They show more skin and are tighter fitting. I'm really confused as to what is revealed in those photos you linked that you feel is indecent?
Underwear.
Edited for clarity.
-
The opposite is the case. You are the one who draws a parallel between being "accosted by ruffians" and being cited by a police officer. Then you say I want to physically assault people. We obviously can't have a discussion if you're going to make things up about me.
The question asked was in the context of private people acting out violently against saggy-pantsers, which is what Roo_ster seems to also approve of.
So in the absence of laws against public nudity, there is public nudity. But don't worry, it's only occasional, and right next to public thoroughfares! laugh/quote]
Oh the terror. THE TERROR. HOW WILL WE LIVE.
-
Underwear. You don't think it's criminally wrong for a man to expose his underwear-coated behind to your wife? Why?
After all the man is naked. Somewhere under his clothing, he is naked.
-
The question asked was in the context of private people acting out violently against saggy-pantsers, which is what Roo_ster seems to also approve of.
I think you misunderstood what mak and rooster were saying.
So in the absence of laws against public nudity, there is public nudity. But don't worry, it's only occasional, and right next to public thoroughfares! laugh
Oh the terror. THE TERROR. HOW WILL WE LIVE.
Oh the terror! We have to wear clothes. How will we live!
-
Now some will insist that government has to be based on rights and facts, and so on, not on cultural norms or societal expectations. Such ideas are extremely naive.
I prefer naivety to evil.
-
I don't support a law that would penalize someone for the waistband of their boxers or the strap of their bra showing, only when an undergarment is the only thing separating us from their private parts.
What if the law simply said that, if an undergarment is the only thing keeping you from a nudity or exposure charge (the only thing covering a private part) you have committed a lesser offense and get a ticket or citation? Even if you wouldn't agree with it, would that at least be more understandable?
-
I prefer naivety to evil.
Sorry, that's not your other option. The alternative is to create a govt that fails to protect people's rights, or even oppresses them, because you don't understand how the world works, or what you're doing.
-
How would you have a legal definition of undergarment?
This is a serious question.
Now, I buy it that briefs are an undergarment for the purpose of this, especially tight ones that effectively outline a person's bodily organs. Hell, I buy the argument that a person wearing such underwear is basically exposing themselves already. (This post is not to be interpreted as any approval of laws banning nudity, however a ban on clothing which renders a person effectively naked is at least intellectually consistent with such bans.)
But this is not what we're talking about, there. The underwear in question are not very different in their design from shorts. Short of a close inspection, it would be difficult to even know - much less prove - it was one way or the other.
-
I don't support a law that would penalize someone for the waistband of their boxers or the strap of their bra showing, only when an undergarment is the only thing separating us from their private parts.
What if the law simply said that, if an undergarment is the only thing keeping you from a nudity or exposure charge (the only thing covering a private part) you have committed a lesser offense and get a ticket or citation? Even if you wouldn't agree with it, would that at least be more understandable?
What if they're going commando?
It's still one layer of cloth. Or is your argument that there must be at least two layers of cloth between "private parts" and air at all times? Or is there some sort of mil rating on coverings?
-
A man wearing soccer shorts and no underwear is "basically exposing himself" in your view? Is it a single layer of fabric that you object to, or just if that fabric is primarily intended as an undergarment even if it is functionally equivalent to "outerwear" shorts? What about union suits?
Underwear.
Edited for clarity.
-
I prefer naivety to evil.
Not me....evil tends to have some smarts to it.....naive is just naive.....
-
You don't think it's criminally wrong for a man to expose his underwear-coated behind to your wife? Why?
Why would it be criminally wrong? I don't get it. It's just buttocks and cloth.
-
I don't support a law that would penalize someone for the waistband of their boxers or the strap of their bra showing, only when an undergarment is the only thing separating us from their private parts.
What if the law simply said that, if an undergarment is the only thing keeping you from a nudity or exposure charge (the only thing covering a private part) you have committed a lesser offense and get a ticket or citation? Even if you wouldn't agree with it, would that at least be more understandable?
You're just trolling at this point, right? You are pulling the "Elaine" defense?
-
There are a few folks here that are missing out on a lucrative sideline in the manufacture of diamonds.
(reference- Ferris Beuller)
-
What if I have another pair of clothing under my boxers and then sag. Would it be ok then?
-
Underwear.
Edited for clarity.
Trunks and Speedos, for men, and one-pieces and bikinis for women, are considered "socially-acceptable" in public.
What's the difference between those things and boxers/briefs, or panty & bra, as appropriate? In each case, the "naughty bits" are fully covered by clothing (and the undergarments are frequently more-substantial than the swimwear!). Oh sure, there's social perception - but that's mere social perception, subject to change. Undergarments are titillating because we know they're undergarments - so make them no big deal, like swimwear.
While I may not consider saggy pants to be all that attractive a clothing option, neither do I consider it to be worthy of a law.
Question, Fistful, and if I missed it earlier I apologize - would you support this law being enforced against a slim woman allowing her thong (or even bikini briefs) to show above her beltline by the requisite amount? I see that more than I see ghetto-boyz with their boxers pulled up to their navels. Is that a societal problem needing to be solved by application of governmental force, as well?
-
I don't support a law that would penalize someone for the waistband of their boxers or the strap of their bra showing, only when an undergarment is the only thing separating us from their private parts.
What if the law simply said that, if an undergarment is the only thing keeping you from a nudity or exposure charge (the only thing covering a private part) you have committed a lesser offense and get a ticket or citation? Even if you wouldn't agree with it, would that at least be more understandable?
What about swimsuits? Nobody wears underwear under a swimsuit.
Sorry, that's not your other option. The alternative is to create a govt that fails to protect people's rights, or even oppresses them, because you don't understand how the world works, or what you're doing.
We have differing opinions on people's rights. Being protected from offense is not a right.
-
We have differing opinions on people's rights. Being protected from offense is not a right.
Indeed. Being able to walk around flashing your underwear is not a right.
Banning offensive things is a power of local governments, though. But it is certainly not a right. Governments don't have rights, they have powers.
-
Indeed. Being able to walk around flashing your underwear is not a right.
Banning offensive things is a power of local governments, though. But it is certainly not a right. Governments don't have rights, they have powers.
I'm not sure I agree.
I think one could reasonably claim that "sagging" as depicted in Fistful's pictures is a specific mode of dress intended to display affiliation with a specific sub-culture. Since it's a mode of dress intended to convey a specific affiliation/message, that would make it speech and protected.
Fistful's issue, as he stated earlier, is that he doesn't like that specific sub-culture and wants to squeeze them out of society.
-
What about the sports bra comparison? We can't have women running around wearing just bra's! Their not even wearing shirts!! How is that ok, but a little sag in your pants so people can see your boxers needs to legislated against!
Exactly; as far as I can tell, this would be perfectly ok with the city:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freethinker.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F08%2Fcyclists.jpg&hash=48f74aefbbebc28f21c42a2bf01c6011b24a13d8)
(Yeah, there's a reason the rest of us wear black bike shorts.)
-
The question asked was in the context of private people acting out violently against saggy-pantsers, which is what Roo_ster seems to also approve of.
Might want to re-read what I wrote earlier.
-
All that's needed is for Fruit Of The Loom to change the label from "mens boxers" to "first amendment outerware". Presto, problem solved.
-
The underwear in question are not very different in their design from shorts. Short of a close inspection, it would be difficult to even know - much less prove - it was one way or the other.
A lot of the saggers are wearing briefs or boxer-briefs, instead. Unfortunately, I am an eye-witness to this.
Fistful's issue, as he stated earlier, is that he doesn't like that specific sub-culture and wants to squeeze them out of society.
False. As I actually stated, there is more than one cultural group doing this. I haven't said anything that could be construed as a desire to squeeze anyone out of society. Unless "Pull up your pants," is code language of some kind.
The first amendment doesn't protect everything that might be considered a mode of expression. After all, breaking windows can carry a message.
-
And you equate destruction of property with visible underpants?
-
And you equate destruction of property with visible underpants?
Only in that they are both violations of others' rights.
-
Only in that they are both violations of others' rights.
Which right is visible underpants violating again?
-
Which right is visible underpants violating again?
The same right that justifies a law against public nudity. We've already covered this.
-
Here is answer to some recent posts:
There seems to be a misconception that the law can't be valid unless we pretend that the back of some guy's underwear is equivalent to some girl's mid-riff. Or unless we pretend that undergarments are the same as outerwear. And, hey, maybe I don't think women (or men) should feel free to go shirtless. I wear an undershirt and a t-shirt, with long pants, when I run. And I'm more sensitive to hot weather than anyone, so I wouldn't have much patience for whining about such a requirement.
Maybe this would be easier, if we could reconsider what should really be acceptable in public, and what shouldn't. Not that I want to ban everything that might be unacceptable, or that I don't like. But there's a huge difference between banning saggy drawers that reveal (a lot of) underwear, and banning, say, some of the more conservative women's one-piece swimsuits. One is socially acceptable and intended for outer wear. Practically speaking, there's no chance those will be banned, without a major shift in what our culture considers acceptable. (Or sports bras, or male toplessness.) (Not to mention that swim-wear could be restricted to pools, beaches, etc.)
Now some will insist that government has to be based on rights and facts, and so on, not on cultural norms or societal expectations. Such ideas are extremely naive. The concepts are not separable. I believe our laws should be limited to protecting the rights of the people. And that's all I'm talking about.
On the biker shorts picture, last page, who says that's legal in Collinsville? One would hope its illegal anywhere.
-
The same right that justifies a law against public nudity. We've already covered this.
And if a majority Muslim community decided that women not wearing burqas was also a violation of that right you'd be ok with it?
That being said, you still haven't explained what is offensive about exposed underpants, that is not also offensive in tight jeans, soccer shorts, or really any type of shorts worn sans underwear.
-
And if a majority Muslim community decided that women not wearing burqas was also a violation of that right you'd be ok with it?
Of course not. They are drawing the line in an absurd place. Are you saying there's a slippery slope between properly worn pants and the burqa? Or do you just say that because it's a time-worn (and usually false) argument we've all heard before?
That being said, you still haven't explained what is offensive about exposed underpants, that is not also offensive in tight jeans, soccer shorts, or really any type of shorts worn sans underwear.
See above post.
-
That being said, you still haven't explained what is offensive about exposed underpants, that is not also offensive in tight jeans, soccer shorts, or really any type of shorts worn sans underwear.
You are making the assumption that Fistful does not wish to make tight jeans, biker shorts, or any kind of shorts worn sans underwear, illegal.
Your assumption may be incorrect.
-
Of course not. They are drawing the line in an absurd place. Are you saying there's a slippery slope between properly worn pants and the burqa? Or do you just say that because it's a time-worn (and usually false) argument we've all heard before?
See above post.
I'm saying it because it might happen. http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1022385--board-runs-afoul-of-education-act-with-prayer-services
And your post above is just blathering nonsense. I feel like I'm done beating my head against this particular wall. Maybe I'll go do something productive like argue with CSD about a bad shoot by a cop... ;/
-
False. As I actually stated, there is more than one cultural group doing this. I haven't said anything that could be construed as a desire to squeeze anyone out of society. Unless "Pull up your pants," is code language of some kind.
The specific subset who sag their pants? They should be "harassed."
Uh Huh.
You were pretty clear.
-
Uh Huh.
You were pretty clear.
He was pretty clear that people who sag their pants should be told to pull up their pants.
He clearly did not say we need to harrass black youths. He further went on to explain, in a circumspect way, that it is not just black youths that sag their pants.
It would be so nice if we didn't have to dance around the race issue. He (and I) doesn't care what color you are.
-
I wasn't dancing around anything. I said sub-culture, not race.
Around here the folks sagging their pants are white teens to 20-somethings. The Urban/rap sub-culture is the defining element I see in sagging/baggy pants not race.
-
Uh Huh.
You were pretty clear.
I am going to go ahead and assume that your last statement was sarcasm and that you are implying that Fistful was being inconsistent. You would be correct if the terms "cultural group" and "specific subset" meant the same thing, but they don't, so you aren't.
-
False. As I actually stated, there is more than one cultural group doing this. I haven't said anything that could be construed as a desire to squeeze anyone out of society. Unless "Pull up your pants," is code language of some kind.
The specific subset who sag their pants? They should be "harassed."
He was pretty clear that people who sag their pants should be told to pull up their pants.
He clearly did not say we need to harrass black youths. He further went on to explain, in a circumspect way, that it is not just black youths that sag their pants.
It would be so nice if we didn't have to dance around the race issue. He (and I) doesn't care what color you are.
No one said this was about black youths, I specifically said "urban youths". If you have actually seen this in person you'd know that "urban youths" be they white, black, spanish, and asian kids all wear their pants like this. Obviously not everyone wears their pants like this but many urban youths of every color do. No one else mentioned race other than you, so there is no dancing other than what you are somehow reading into.
Ladies, apologies ahead of time. I'm going to have to play devils advocate and start comparing breast to boxers, and start denigrating breast. Don't worry I actually love them and the below post doesn't reflect my views on breasts at all.
There seems to be a misconception that the law can't be valid unless we pretend that the back of some guy's underwear is equivalent to some girl's mid-riff. Or unless we pretend that undergarments are the same as outerwear.
Exactly. I don't know how you can logically come to the conclusion that a woman that exposes a large portion of her breasts through
a revealing top is less offensive and less revealing that seeing some cloth. How can you compare viable boxers to public indecency, when large quantities of actual skin showing on a different gender is acceptable.
Another odd thing about public indecency and breast is that in 45 states breast feeding in public is 100% legal!
A woman is pulling out her bare breast, in public and its legal!!! I was joking at first when I asked if you where sexist, but as a male this is starting to sound sexist. A woman can reveal a good portion of her breasts / or her entire breast if she's nursing any day of the week without question, but a guy is going to be harassed and ticketed by police because his boxers are showing. Give me a break.
How many times here have I heard that laws are not created to protect your delicate sensibilities in regards to anti's protesting open carry, but once the target of legislation is something a poster does not like they suddenly think that the law is their to protect their sensibilities. Hypocritical if you ask me.
And seriously, we've been debating underwear for 6 pages now. :laugh:
-
At what point in this argument has any of the supporters of the local ordinance made any statement that says women can wear whatever they want but guys need to pull up their pants? (Not just picking on you, Seenterman, lots have made the same argument, you are just the most recent one.)
As for "Urban Youths" unless that means "Nearly any teenage or immature adult in any city, town, or municipality in the country", then it's not just urban youths.
-
At what point in this argument has any of the supporters of the local ordinance made any statement that says women can wear whatever they want but guys need to pull up their pants? (Not just picking on you, Seenterman, lots have made the same argument, you are just the most recent one.)
Those busy bodies who passed this ordinance probably would support something like a cleavage police. I've been trying to use breasts as a comparison to point out a logical hole in fistfuls argument. If he can compare visible boxers to public indecency how can you not come to the same conclusion about women who wear revealing tops which actually exposes skin. I think he's just dodging the question because he enjoys those revealing tops as much as I do and doesn't want to admit.
As for "Urban Youths" unless that means "Nearly any teenage or immature adult in any city, town, or municipality in the country", then it's not just urban youths.
Well yes that's true I just used "urban youths" because I was an "urban youth" and saw this pretty much everyday (but that was back in the 90's or very early 00's). It's also where the style started, but yes it has expanded to everyone who wears urban / rap / ghetto style clothing everywhere across the country.
-
Whenever I see "utes" with sagging pants and exposed underwear, I explain to them where that fashion statement came from and what it means/implies. It's amazing how quickly they then pull up their pants.
-
I'm still waiting for anyone to define how 1. clothing choice is not speech and how 2. infringement against a Constitutionally specified right should not be held to the "strict scrutiny" legal standard.
-
I'm still waiting for anyone to define how 1. clothing choice is not speech and how 2. infringement against a Constitutionally specified right should not be held to the "strict scrutiny" legal standard.
I'm still waiting for anyone to define how pancakes are not clothing my own self. And how anal fissures are not speech, too, and therefore qualifying them for strict scrutiny(1).
I suspect we both will be disappointed, as any others with two brain cells to rub together will look at us like we have grown a phallus from our foreheads.
(1) I hear that some folks will pay good $$$ for "strict scrutiny" of anal fissures. Could be just a rumor, though.
-
Where does it say we don't have that right? Last I remember they didn't want the fact that they had only a few amendments in there didn't mean that those were the only rights we have. Pursuit of happiness anyone?
edit - What about kilts, worn correctly? =D
-
I'm still waiting for anyone to define how 1. clothing choice is not speech
Of course clothing is speech. Reasonable men realize that by choice of clothing they send a message to other people as to what self-image they want to project and what social group (and thus values) they want to associate with.
This is also precisely why people want to ban certain types of clothing - in this case, saggypants. Saggypants are associated with gang-bangers and those who think gang-bangers are cool. People reasonably and legitimately disapprove of this subculture. This does not mean they should, or can, make their disapproval law.
-
Some of you guys are just like Cameron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42K4EwVssQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42K4EwVssQ)
If thyne eye offend thee, pluck it out.
-
i would disagree with the clothing (unless it is a printed message on the underwear that you take offense too) being covered by the first amendment. i would , however, say that a person should be left to choose their own wardrobe (no matter how absurd that it is.). perhaps we would be more comforted if the saggy pants revealed a more suitable garment like a speedo? well accepted as outerwear, (yuck) it could not be offensive if exposed? funny how it was just this week that i saw a gentleman wearing his belt at mid thigh. i couldn't figure how his pants were staying up (he must have had internal suspenders as all but the last inch of boxers were showing). i wasn't thinking "where is the constable"? i was lmao!
as an aside, i only read the first and last pages of this thread and i have to say that it is likely the first thread i have seen make 6 pages without drifting off topic. (nearly the same wording in fact)
-
I'm still waiting for anyone to define how pancakes are not clothing my own self. And how anal fissures are not speech, too, and therefore qualifying them for strict scrutiny(1).
I suspect we both will be disappointed, as any others with two brain cells to rub together will look at us like we have grown a phallus from our foreheads.
(1) I hear that some folks will pay good $$$ for "strict scrutiny" of anal fissures. Could be just a rumor, though.
I'm still waiting...
-
Does someone think that "anal fissure" == "butt crack"?
-
Does someone think that "anal fissure" == "butt crack"?
Not I, but you never know about some folks.
-
Roo: I'm confused by your statement. Are you saying the matter at hand (public dress codes) are not related to clothing, or that clothing is not related to speech?
-
Those busy bodies who passed this ordinance probably would support something like a cleavage police. I've been trying to use breasts as a comparison to point out a logical hole in fistfuls argument. If he can compare visible boxers to public indecency how can you not come to the same conclusion about women who wear revealing tops which actually exposes skin. I think he's just dodging the question because he enjoys those revealing tops as much as I do and doesn't want to admit.
Why would I not want to admit that I enjoy revealing tops? I am a man, so why would I even have to admit it? It is assumed.
But did I say I opposed an anti-cleavage law? Let's just say I don't see it happening.
Is there any logical link between a saggy pants ban and a cleavage ban? I'll answer that by pointing out that I've never seen skid-marks in a woman's cleavage.
-
I'm saying it because it might happen. http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1022385--board-runs-afoul-of-education-act-with-prayer-services
So that's a yes to the slippery slope, and then what's the link have to do with anything? ???
-
Uh Huh.
You were pretty clear.
CNYCacher pointed out your misunderstanding.
Now where did I talk about squeezing anyone out of society?
-
I'm still waiting for anyone to define how 1. clothing choice is not speech and how 2. infringement against a Constitutionally specified right should not be held to the "strict scrutiny" legal standard.
I have already informed you that the First does not automatically protect any form of expression. You have failed to inform us on why this law does not meet strict scrutiny.
-
Another odd thing about public indecency and breast is that in 45 states breast feeding in public is 100% legal!
A woman is pulling out her bare breast, in public and its legal!!!
I also think it's pretty obvious that babies should not be regarded as clothing. If a breast is exposed enough for a public nudity or indecent exposure charge, the presence of nursing baby should not make a difference. This should be obvious to anyone with a pulse.
I was joking at first when I asked if you where sexist, but as a male this is starting to sound sexist.
A sexist is a person that regards sexual differences as real, important, and worthy of some recognition by society. A non-sexist is someone that believes sexual differences are no more significant than skin color. Not being entirely divorced from reality, I am proud to call myself a sexist, which is to say a realist. There is no need for sexism in the matter of flashing your under-wear clad undercarriage, though. It should be illegal for both sexes. Of course, I said that already.
-
I also think it's pretty obvious that babies should not be regarded as clothing. If a breast is exposed enough for a public nudity or indecent exposure charge, the presence of nursing baby should not make a difference. This should be obvious to anyone with a pulse.
In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.
-
In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.
...and this is another reason I love Texas..... =D
-
I also think it's pretty obvious that babies should not be regarded as clothing. If a breast is exposed enough for a public nudity or indecent exposure charge, the presence of nursing baby should not make a difference. This should be obvious to anyone with a pulse.
No sure I understand you; You'd make women nursing their babies in public illegal and equal to public indecency?
There is no need for sexism in the matter of flashing your under-wear clad undercarriage, though. It should be illegal for both sexes. Of course, I said that already.
So you'd actually want the police ticketing women who show bra and thong straps?
Wow and I though some of my catholic school friends were puritanical, you got nothing on them. I think Iran has some laws like these =D
In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.
So a woman walking around bare chested would be legal? I knew there was another reason people loved Texas so much.
-
So a woman walking around bare chested would be legal?
Cities might have more specific ordinances, but outside of town, the worst I could see it getting would be an easily beaten misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.
-
No sure I understand you; You'd make women nursing their babies in public illegal and equal to public indecency?
It certainly ought to be illegal, if we're not allowing breasts to be exposed for any other reason. How does feeding an infant make it OK to expose oneself in public? Explain that.
So you'd actually want the police ticketing women who show bra and thong straps?
Not at all what I said, and I already gave an answer to that. But then, why should you bother to read what you're responding to?
-
In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.
B-b-b-but-but, you can't differentiate between different parts of the body! That's hypocritical!!
-
B-b-b-but-but, you can't differentiate between different parts of the body! That's hypocritical!!
Sure. But then political compromise is awesome like that.
-
It certainly ought to be illegal, if we're not allowing breasts to be exposed for any other reason. How does feeding an infant make it OK to expose oneself in public? Explain that.
Because, Fistful, feeding an infant is the inherent purpose of breasts and the most natural thing in the world! The "sexual" aspect is secondary. Kind of like a mouth is used for eating/speaking/taking in air, but is also used for sexual gratification. Yet exposing one's mouth isn't in any way wrong, though it ought to be for some.
Bottom line, I don't really care what anyone wears. If we all wore the same style of clothing in the same fashion, who would we have to laugh at? Come on!
-
Because, Fistful, feeding an infant is the inherent purpose of breasts and the most natural thing in the world! The "sexual" aspect is secondary. Kind of like a mouth is used for eating/speaking/taking in air, but is also used for sexual gratification. Yet exposing one's mouth isn't in any way wrong, though it ought to be for some.
That doesn't answer the question. The question is, if there's a reason why breasts have to be covered, how does feeding a child overrule that? You can't compare it to the mouth, because there's no taboo against showing one's mouth in public. And most people don't use their backsides for sex, but they are still forbidden from showing them to the public.
It is perfectly innocent and natural to breastfeed, but so are sex and sex organs. The question to ask ourselves is, "What is behind this proscription against nudity, and how would breast-feeding circumvent it?"
-
So, what of the jurisdictions that don't mandate covering one's breasts at all?
-
I've been meaning to say that I think most of you who disagree with the Collinsville law are raising some valid points, and I can see your side of the argument. There's been a little hyperventilating about burqas and other nonsense, but most of you seem concerned about how a like like the present one could lead to bad consequences, and I respect that.
-
So, what of the jurisdictions that don't mandate covering one's breasts at all?
What about them?
-
What about them?
Prohibiting exposed breasts does not seem to be an ubiquitous value in Western civilization.
But even if we accept - for the purpose of mental exercise - that indecent exposure laws are a generally morally tenable idea, it is their purpose to prohibit exposure due to its sexual overtones. Breastfeeding one's child is not a sexual activity - unless someone is seriously perverted in many creepy ways. Because of its generally non-sexual nature, it's often exempted from laws which intend to 'protect' individuals from being exposed to sexual activity or organs against their will.
-
So that's a yes to the slippery slope, and then what's the link have to do with anything? ???
A majority Muslim community imposing their religious standards on non-Muslims doesn't relate to a discussion of how a majority Muslim community might use a bad law such as this to impose their religious standards? You're being intentionally obtuse now.
I have already informed you that the First does not automatically protect any form of expression. You have failed to inform us on why this law does not meet strict scrutiny.
Oh, wow, thanks so much for clearing that up for me. And if you'll read my posts, you'd see that I have.
-
A majority Muslim community imposing their religious standards on non-Muslims doesn't relate to a discussion of how a majority Muslim community might use a bad law such as this to impose their religious standards? You're being intentionally obtuse now.
You're being obtuse for even bringing Muslims into this.
Prohibiting exposed breasts does not seem to be an ubiquitous value in Western civilization.
And?
But even if we accept - for the purpose of mental exercise - that indecent exposure laws are a generally morally tenable idea, it is their purpose to prohibit exposure due to its sexual overtones. Breastfeeding one's child is not a sexual activity - unless someone is seriously perverted in many creepy ways. Because of its generally non-sexual nature, it's often exempted from laws which intend to 'protect' individuals from being exposed to sexual activity or organs against their will.
Walking down the street is not sexual, either. You may need to re-evaluate your understanding of the reasons for anti-nudity laws.
-
Walking down the street is not sexual, either. You may need to re-evaluate your understanding of the reasons for anti-nudity laws.
Sure. But sexual organs are, uh, sexual. Walking down the street with said organs visible is seen by some misguided people as a form of sexual assault. Exemptions are made for a small subset of activities.
We know this.
-
Ok, so nudity doesn't have to be sexually motivated to be considered wrong or illegal. You've successfully erased the false distinction in your analysis. Congratulations.
-
You're being obtuse for even bringing Muslims into this.
Bull and you know it. If you propose a community can regulate dress codes, and their are examples of Muslim communities imposing their religious dictates on society at large, then it damn well is relevant.
-
Ok, so nudity doesn't have to be sexually motivated to be considered wrong or illegal. You've successfully erased the false distinction in your analysis. Congratulations.
Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.
-
Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.
You forget his right to never see a nude person.
-
Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.
You say that now.
Once If you recover after Helen strips down to her birthday suit and shakes her thang in front of you, you may think otherwise.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpunditkitchen.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F06%2F129205250611891323.jpg&hash=1d096c31ea2c97d522775e27352247146fa09b87)
-
Oh god, I saw an old person naked. How will I ever live with myself?
-
Oh god, I saw an old person naked. How will I ever live with myself?
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Although written humorously, this is completely true. The images in my head cannot be erased. We don't have a delete button (at least, one not involving trauma). For that reason, we make rules such that people can avoid scenes they do not wish to have in their heads.
That includes Helen there.
However, discussing nudity is rather far afield, but it illustrates the gulf between our thinking. You think imposing nudity upon others is fine, as you claim there is no externality at all from viewing nudity.
If you believe that, then there is no way you can understand a locality's desire to ban other rude forms of dress.
-
Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.
We've already covered that, and most people seem to disagree with you. I'm sorry.
What does that have to do with special dispensation for mothers?
-
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Although written humorously, this is completely true. The images in my head cannot be erased. We don't have a delete button (at least, one not involving trauma). For that reason, we make rules such that people can avoid scenes they do not wish to have in their heads.
That includes Helen there.
However, discussing nudity is rather far afield, but it illustrates the gulf between our thinking. You think imposing nudity upon others is fine, as you claim there is no externality at all from viewing nudity.
If you believe that, then there is no way you can understand a locality's desire to ban other rude forms of dress.
Is there anything else that you may find traumatizing to see? Please provide us a full list that we may ban it all post-haste!
-
Is there anything else that you may find traumatizing to see? Please provide us a full list that we may ban it all post-haste!
If you'll note, I never said "ban." I said "rules such that people can avoid scenes they do not wish to have in their heads."
We don't allow R-rated material on Billboards, yet R-rated material is allowed to be shown on movie screens.
We don't allow nudity in public, but in private (houses or businesses) it is perfectly acceptable.
This is a matter of what is acceptable in public in Collinsville. If you want to walk around with your belt around your thighs or sans clothing at all, I suggest you go somewhere that has deemed that acceptable.
-
Exactly what is the moral - not legal, moral - reason we can not apply the same rule to larger localities than Collinsville? States? Entire nations?
-
Don't you think that federalism and local control are good ways to address the fact that people disagree on what laws are acceptable, or on exactly what rights we do or do not have?
-
You forget his right to never see a nude person.
Pretty much.
-
Bull and you know it. If you propose a community can regulate dress codes, and their are examples of Muslim communities imposing their religious dictates on society at large, then it damn well is relevant.
OK, so you make the absurd leap of equating a saggy pants law with the burqa. And you explain this "logic," by digging up some school district where Muslim kids pray in a cafeteria. And anyone who doesn't grasp the connection is obtuse?
And you think I'm the one writing "blathering nonsense"?
-
Exactly what is the moral - not legal, moral - reason we can not apply the same rule to larger localities than Collinsville? States? Entire nations?
Ease of exit.
Amount of disagreement.
Local rule is always better than central rule.
Competition of systems.
-
Don't you think that federalism and local control are good ways to address the fact that people disagree on what laws are acceptable, or on exactly what rights we do or do not have?
I'm not sure what your point is.
What I disagree with is the idea that you somehow 'consent' to local laws since you 'can always move to another town'.
-
I'm not sure what your point is.
What I disagree with is the idea that you somehow 'consent' to local laws since you 'can always move to another town'.
You do. You may not agree with them, but you do consent to them by the fact you have not left.
For example, many people disagree with banning prostitution. (Note also, this is actually BANNED, as in it is not legal to do, even on private property.) They consent to these laws by the fact they have not moved to Nevada or Amsterdam.
-
You do. You may not agree with them, but you do consent to them by the fact you have not left.
For example, many people disagree with banning prostitution. (Note also, this is actually BANNED, as in it is not legal to do, even on private property.) They consent to these laws by the fact they have not moved to Nevada or Amsterdam.
On this logic, is there anything that the government may not morally (rather than legally) do, as long as they are not keeping you from leaving?
-
On this logic, is there anything that the government may not morally (rather than legally) do, as long as they are not keeping you from leaving?
It is immoral for the government to take your property by force, whether or not you may leave.
-
It is immoral for the government to take your property by force, whether or not you may leave.
And this is the only thing you've come up with?
The Prosecution will rest its case.
-
OK, so you make the absurd leap of equating a saggy pants law with the burqa.
It's hardly an absurd leap; the law isn't specific, and would also prohibit wearing a burqa so saggy that one's drawers are exposed.
I'm still curious as to how it would apply to, say, wearing a union suit with overalls, since that would still expose a significant amount of underwear.
-
You do. You may not agree with them, but you do consent to them by the fact you have not left.
For example, many people disagree with banning prostitution. (Note also, this is actually BANNED, as in it is not legal to do, even on private property.) They consent to these laws by the fact they have not moved to Nevada or Amsterdam.
So, if a local law is passed that covers the area where I own property have resided for an extended period of time and I disagree with that law I am free to pack my crap and leave.
Tyranny of the majority?
-
I'm still curious as to how it would apply to, say, wearing a union suit with overalls, since that would still expose a significant amount of underwear.
The Collinsville law doesn't affect that at all. Are you saying you can't see a difference between the two situations?
-
On this logic, is there anything that the government may not morally (rather than legally) do, as long as they are not keeping you from leaving?
They may not violate your rights.
-
This woman being ticketed should make some of you puritans happy
:facepalm:
http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display (http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display)
-
This woman being ticketed should make some of you puritans happy
:facepalm:
http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display (http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display)
Well within the state's rights power.
I also happen to approve. I don't relish explaining to a 4 year old what tasteless things some truck owners wish to impose on others.
Again, so long as there are "public" areas, the public has a say in what is acceptable there. Want to drive around with "Truck nuts" on private property? Knock yourself out.
-
http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display (http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display)
"My interpretation is they're talking about human body parts," says Caddell. "I don't think these are human body parts... it looks like a chrome plated door knocker."
Given that they're clearly designed to portray human body parts, I wonder how he'd feel if the local elementary schools started celebrating Honen Matsuri.
-
Well within the state's rights power.
I also happen to approve. I don't relish explaining to a 4 year old what tasteless things some truck owners wish to impose on others.
Again, so long as there are "public" areas, the public has a say in what is acceptable there. Want to drive around with "Truck nuts" on private property? Knock yourself out.
On this logic, could the town ban the truck itself? Say, on the idea 'this is our hippie-lolberal town, and pickup trucks hurt mother Gaia'?
Could the town ban bumper stickers that say REPEAL PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS, DOWN WITH PURITANISM?
Again, obviously legally they might have issues, I'm asking for the moral viewpoint.
-
(1)On this logic, could the town ban the truck itself? Say, on the idea 'this is our hippie-lolberal town, and pickup trucks hurt mother Gaia'?
(2)Could the town ban bumper stickers that say REPEAL PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS, DOWN WITH PURITANISM?
Again, obviously legally they might have issues, I'm asking for the moral viewpoint.
(1) Of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island
(2) There is no obscenity in that statement. Thus, not morally right to ban.
-
(1) Of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island
(2) There is no obscenity in that statement. Thus, not morally right to ban.
I thought we could do whatever we wanted? After all you CHOOOOSE! to live in that location?
-
I thought we could do whatever we wanted? After all you CHOOOOSE! to live in that location?
You didn't ask if they had the power to do that, you asked if it was morally right.
-
Given that they're clearly designed to portray human body parts, I wonder how he'd feel if the local elementary schools started celebrating Honen Matsuri.
Clearly, they are designed to portray bull body parts. Their position on the back of a 4-legged creature (truck) should be obvious.
The original: http://www.bullsballs.com/
-
You didn't ask if they had the power to do that, you asked if it was morally right.
Yes, they clearly don't have the power to regulate non-obscene statements. They're limited by the first Amendment. It applies to localities. So do state constitutions.
-
Yes, they clearly don't have the power to regulate non-obscene statements. They're limited by the first Amendment. It applies to localities. So do state constitutions.
Under U.S. law, they don't have the power. I should have said "should have that power".
I think they should. I also think it would be morally wrong to infringe on non-obscene free speech, but that should be a limit placed in constitutions by argreement of the whole, like we have in the United States.
So it is a power that localities should have, but could not morally exercise.
-
(1) Of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island
AFAICT, the motor vehicle ban there is simply a part of general "don't be a dumbass" rules. The part of the island not in the state park is smaller than a lot of city parks; the longest distance you would actually need to travel without leaving the island would be four miles.