A Louisiana town council has unanimously passed an ordinance aimed at tackling the public decency menace of low-slung trousers. Delcambre Mayor Carol Broussard, earlier this week confirmed he will sign the proposal "to make wearing saggy trousers an act of indecent exposure", the BBC reports. He said: "If you expose your …
Won't someone please..
think of the builders and plumbers?? They're all going to be broke after this ordinance makes it onto the books.. :-D
And to think that the reg posted only IT news, ahhh, those were the days.....
So exposure of underwear is a problem...
Easy... Just wear a pair of shorts commando style under/above the low slung trousers/pants... Tada, no exposure of underwear.
Oooh, hang on, this is the USA we're talking about here... BRB just gonna slap a patent on that idea and quite literally sue their arses/asses when they use my idea!
Re: IT news
I think the statement should be "And to think that the Lester posted only IT news, ahhh, those were the days" - these days when I see the headline in the rss feed and it hints at body parts, sex, bodily functions, techo-self pleasure, or more often than not, any combination of them I instantly know it's gonna have Lester as the author.
Then I go read it for a chuckle; keep up the grand work Lester!
Stupidity gone mad
I certainly hope they don't have anybody lounging around in public in swimwear. After all, what's the difference between swim trunks and boxers? Bikini and bra/panties? There's literally no difference other than the names we give them. So what will happen if a woman is walking down the street with her trousers low and her bikini bottoms exposed?
something sinister going on?
"Delcambre Mayor *Carol* Broussard... o absolutely clarify his position on the matter, he said of trouser low-riders: "They're better off taking the pants off and just wearing a dress."
A man named Carol asking men to wear dresses.
Okay, so the quote is chopped up a bit and maybe out of context, but it's still funny.
on two minds
on the one hand, I think seeing someone's ass above their trousers is one of the least aesthetically pleasing things to see. On the other, legislation about it... Couldn't they go after the people who talk (on the phone or otherwise) in cinemas?
re: stupidity gone mad
Bikini? Probably fined too. This is the south they're writing about here, a few parts are pretty normal but most of it is prude city.
Decently dressed superheroes
Superman fined for wearing his pants outside his tights. Superwoman done for flashing her bazooms. Batman banged to rights for wearing an offensive codpiece, and hanging out with a minor in red knickers. The Hulk hauled up for serious green nipple exposure, and for carrying a concealed weapon in his trousers.
Where will Louisiana find a decently dressed superhero?
The film you are thinking of is The Return of Captain Invincible. The title hero does indeed become a recluse after being prosecuted for, amongst other things, showing his underwear in public.
I guess Whale Tail is OK then?
Since there isn't any mention of fining Whale Tail it sounds like it's only low slung trousers that matter and not the act of showing your underwear. So if the guys wear mini skirts they can show their underwear?
Th disadvantage of Whale Tails
I have long held the view that somethings deserve to be hidden. The reason for my enthusiasm about the removal of the whale tail is that when travelling on escalators (notably the London Underground) for every fine beautiful 'show piece' arse that I have been privileged to be exposed to, I have seen half-a-dozen that scare the b-jeezes out of me. So, I and many former colleagues both male and female (who had a very controversial discussion on the intranet) have come to the conclusion that exposed underwear is too much of a risk and we would sacrifice the few to save the many.
The only other country where this is also illegal
Is Iran ...
Come to think of it - religious fundamentalism, enforced modesty for women, xenophobia, pseudo-democracy, penal system with severe sentences for minor crimes, the list goes on... which country were we talking about ?
But to be fair...
If we're going to ban some clothes because some people don't like them, I think we should open this out a bit. I'd like to ban:
1. Pin-stripe suits
3. Kilts, unless the wearer comes clean and admits it's a *skirt*
4. Tracksuit bottoms tucked into socks: just say no
5. And of course, sandals worn with socks
I've never, ever understood the appeal of a fake Rolex. The real Rolex watch (whose second hand moves smoothly) was certainly not a bad piece of engineering, but it was tainted nonetheless due to being invariably worn by yuppie d!(kheads who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing -- definitely -not- a class of people worth emulating. The fake Rolex watch, whose second hand moves in a series of jerks, is obvious to anyone with any eyesight. It says "I am a cheaply-made watch, trying to look like a more expensive timepiece and failing abjectly. My wearer is all the more pathetic for fondly imagining that I make him look cool. In actual fact, he has -negative- coolness and will make anyone around him appear less cool."
The Sekonda Russian railway worker's watch ..... now that's a classy timepiece, and not at all expensive either.
Typical Racist Lawmaking
Another nail in the coffin for freedom of expression in the good old US of A. And stunningly racist too. How can a law that will directly affect 90% of a minority population and barely 1% of the majority population be ANYTHING but racist?
And where does ths puritanical lawmaking end? Will the ban all bikinis, all swimsuits, all shorts as being obscene? Will they outlaw advertising and sell of all underwear as it can be used in an offensive manner? Will they have ritualistic burnings of all catalogues that dare to have pictures of men or women wearing only underwear? Will they ban all programmes that include scenes on beaches or really hot weather, because the risk of naked skin on public display will be too high? Utter madness! But hey as long as they are gun-wielding god-fearing christians i'm sure they have everyone's best interest at heart....
RE the Fashion Police comment, essex chavs may pretend to be 50 Cent etc, but when you're poor, black and living in the deep south of america, you generally don't "pretend" anything. It's fine you don't like people dressing a certain way, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But try not to tar everyone with the same brush - some people wear hoodies, low-slung trousers and caps sideways because they always have, others becuase they see it on MTV.
Dress code stupidity
Who puts idiots like this into a position of power, Every day I go shopping and see tops of thongs / knickers above the top of jeans because of the fashion for jeans that have a low waistline, are all hose women going to be fined now?
Its stupid, I don't care, anyone who does care is just too sensitive, its like tesco's ban last year on people wearing bikini tops shopping in the heatwave, hell if your on a beach and suddenly fancy a drive to get some ice cream etc to take back to the beach, you have to drive home and get changed first, come on its stupid, we all have the same body parts even if in different shapes and sizes.
is it not new yorks times square where its not illegal for a woman to be topless but in a porn movie must have an item of clothing on to not be nude.....(usually a show, so I am told, never having seen one)
logical that or what...
Fake Rolex build quality
I think it depends on the build quality (and ironically the cost) of the fake Rolex. I've seen some that have a very passable 'sweep' action for the second hand. Such examples are ~£100-150 and are even waterproof. However there are still the dirt cheap £10-20 ones which usually have the wrong bezel/face combination, obviously wrong wriststrap, a clunky second hand movement and will probably stop working if in the vicinity of moisture.
RE: Typical Racist Lawmaking
How on earth can you call this racist?
Racism is the assumption of characteristics based on race. What you're saying is that it's a characteristic of black people to wear clothing like this, i.e. just being black will make you want to wear your pants down. That assertion is racist in itself!
What we could say, without being racist, is that wearing this type of clothing is popular amongst black people. That would just be asserting a statistical correlation, if one even exists (I don't know). Outlawing the clothing is not an attack on black people but an attack on a fashion. Don't confuse the the issue or you're not much better than a backward racist yourself!
Now, as for the fashion, I'm willing to suffer the occasional downright nasty butt for glimpse of the odd crack of perfection.
"are all hose women" - interesting freudian slip given the topic.
Just another reason the rest of the world thinks that southern USA is run by a bunch of gun toting retarded religious rednecks
Add to the Ban List
Lardys wearing Lycra (it's just scary)
Older women wearing clothing suitable for a 12-14 year old
Baseball caps with the peak off to one side.
Where the "low slung" came from
I wonder how widely it was be a fad followed by people if they realized it started in jail where those whom were "selling it" were wearing pants that showed it off.
Whether bubba needed a new pack of cigs or not, his gyrl was going to be earning them for him...
- iPad? More like iFAD: We reveal why Apple ran off to IBM
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Apple: We'll unleash OS X Yosemite beta on the MASSES July 24