Feeds

back to article Middle America pulls up sagging pants menace, belts repeat offenders

It's evident that despite the best attempts of Middle America to crack down on sagging pants - da yoof's low-slung kecks look that has right-minded citizens firing up the Twat-O-Tron - the US way of life continues to be menaced by trousers flying at half mast. Back in 2007, the Louisiana town of Delcambre took up cudgels against …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Bieber?

Surely it's only a matter of time before it goes out of fashion, if Bieber's doing it.

2
0
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Bieber?

This is a new 'low' even for El Reg, where's the tech story?

2
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: Bieber? - where's the tech story?

Presumably around someone's ankles.

4
0
Thumb Up

Re: Bieber?

Would this count as the tech angle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKcBnmjoR_I

2
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: Re: Bieber?

I had an IT angle lying around somewhere, but appear to have mislaid it. While I go and have a look, I suggest you read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/bootnotes_advice/

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Bieber and going out of fashion

I know I'd like to see the back of Bieber, but not in that way.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Bieber?

I thought that the domestic manners of the Americans was a recognized IT angle. We're certainly happy to provide light relief from pressing matters like the impending royal birth etc.

1
0
Silver badge

All the time.

I see kids wearing their pants like this all the time. Always makes me laugh! Although the "people" who really need to be "up in arms" about this are the purveyors of fine underwear, like, well I guess Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren and similar trash. After all, in order for these kids to show off their fashionable frilly panties (or equivalent), said frilly panties (or equivalent) need to be obtained in the first place, right? That's got to be good for someone's, er, bottom line.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"so low that his genitals were almost showing"

i.e. they actually were not. On that basis, an awful lot of bikini bottoms would be illegal.

4
2
Paris Hilton

Re: "so low that his genitals were almost showing"

Oh, I think bikini bottoms would be illegal if I wore them. I'd half half a genitals showing each side!

3
0
Silver badge

love the USofA

it's ok to walk around with a gun but it's illegal to look like a idiot.

Gotta love those morales.

27
5
Gold badge
WTF?

Re: love the USofA

Unfortunately it would seem that looking like a right bellend isn't quite the disincentive that you might have thought.

Maybe they should consider making it mandatory to point and laugh when you see someone dressed like that?

5
0
Trollface

Re: Gotta love those morales

Typical Yank*, blaming the Mexicans....

*No need to point out thats its probably not

6
0
Childcatcher

Re: love the USofA

Actually, it's the ones carrying the guns that look like idiots. Very dangerous idiots, but idiots just the same. And before you need to ask, I'm an American gun owner, but some things have their limits. If you need a hundred round clip to go hunting, you are obviously a horrible shot and I don't want you in my party or within several miles of me. Saggy pants? Another case of old white people worrying about stuff that really doesn't matter while really important things like people starving to death gets ignored.

2
1
Boffin

Re: love the USofA

What does hunting with a 100 round "magazine" have to do with carrying a gun?

The two are completely different and I have never seen anybody hunt with even half that.

Please, have some knowledge before you decide to post such nonsense.

P.S.

To anybody trying to hunt, that is using 100 rounds of ammo for anything other than varmint, you are probably doing it wrong. If it is varmint, then you are probably just having fun.

0
0
Mushroom

Re: love the USofA

Well, smart boy, if you don't need a hundred round magazine to hunt, why is the NRA and all the other wing nuts so up in arms about it? As for my pedigree, I probably held a firearm before you stood up to pee. I lived on Army bases until I was 12. And I turned 12 before the Beatles came to America. Any more questions?

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: If you need a hundred round clip to go hunting...

That may depend on what you are hunting.

You may not need that much ammo in the woods hunting deer; but in the urban forest, hunting 'buck' might be a different story.

1
0
Facepalm

Re: love the USofA @ fehu

I don't want to get in a pissing contest with anybody.

Of course, living on an army base must make you an expert!

I have never heard anybody say they need a big magazine to hunt. There are a lot of advocates for the ability to use whatever they want. If you are in the wilderness and get lost, 3 shots in the air is a universal signal for distress, with low amounts of ammo you can eat that up quickly. There are also larger animals in some areas. Mountain lions, bears, and even moose can be quite dangerous.

I certainly don't need to pee standing up, have a car that can go over the speed limit, or have a tv as big as my wall. I certainly like having those things, and like having the ability to buy them if I so desire.

Certainly though I was referring mostly to your comment about carrying a gun makes one look like an idiot and also making a bad reference and incorrect terminology to a magazine limit and hunting, all three which are generally completely seperate issues. All while saying you are a gun owner.

Carrying a firearm is for self defense. So if you say carrying a firearm makes one look like an idiot, I would like to see you say that to all those that are currently serving, all of the police officers, and anybody who takes the responsibility to protect their family.

Hunting is for food/sport and I certainly wouldn't call someone hunting for food an idiot.

Magazine limits are for sport and protection of rights. It is very easy to go through 100 rounds, especially in a semi automatic firearm. The size of the magazine doesn't really change that but a split second for even semi accurate shooting.*

So, because you have been around them, because you own it, doesn't make you an expert in any sense, and when you state something so broadly and poorly it just looks bad.

*note: if someone wants to shoot a deer 100 times while they are hunting, that is their right. I will probably shake my head and hope I am far far away from them, but I shouldn't be able to stop them.

0
4
Headmaster

Re: love the USofA

Gotta love those morales.

What does Morales have to do with this? He doesn't wear sagging pants.

(Learn how to spell, you dolt.)

0
0
Silver badge

Re: love the USofA This....

"Another case of old white people worrying about stuff that really doesn't matter while really important things like people starving to death gets ignored."

... is it. Too much bikeshedding in the reg, and everywhere else too. People forget to prioritise.

0
0
Black Helicopters

Re: love the USofA @ fehu

So, because you have been around them, because you own it, doesn't make you an expert in any sense

Apply that to yourself, hoss.

I was struggling to find just the right word or phrase and I found it on a right wing blog that was discussing this very topic: anal retentive. That's how many describe people who get all riled up when they think people use the wrong terminology in reference to their favorite method of mass murder.

-= SMH =- And this comes from a proponent of a point of view that loves to demonize political correctness.

0
2
Mushroom

Re: love the USofA

For the most part, that's only in some states, those known as "red states" because they're controlled by RepubliCLOWNS or the Xtian Taliban, who believe that everyone is entitled to carry their choice of penis substitutes (aka guns, loaded or unloaded) anywhere they choose.

0
1
g e
Silver badge

I still dont get it though

Why pretend you're dressing like a prison inmate who's advertising the availability of their arse for a bout of rough man-love in the laundry (or wherever's handy).

Or does it mean something so more subtle that's it's beyond the ken of folks who don't do it?

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: I still dont get it though

That's probably the best way to deal with the problem - start some online gossip suggesting that it's become a real fad in the gay community.

3
1
Trollface

Re: I still dont get it though

It does makes some sense from an evolutionary point of view.

It's like the peacock's tail, it hinders his ability to get away from danger, but the fact that he does have that ludicrous tail and yet is still alive and strutting in front of a peahen demonstrates his obvious higher fitness.

In the same way, saggy pants need one hand to keep them from sagging the rest of the way (a hand that is not available for offense/defense), and running away is, at best, a fast waddle. It demonstrates higher fitness!

0
0
Silver badge

Enforcement

Just put some Offensive Arsewear Eradication Enforcement Officers on strategic street corners, armed with canes, to silently administer 1 lash across the buttocks to any offender passing them by.

4
0
FAIL

The only fitting punishment...

...for wearing clothing the looks quite that stupid is to be the kind of person who would wear clothing the looks quite that stupid.

So I reckon we're pretty much sorted.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: The only fitting punishment...

I am currently speculating what would be a fitting punishment for someone who thinks that "clothing the looks" is a combination of words that makes sense.

0
0
Silver badge

Fashion is a cruel mistress

You've gotta love full-nappy look.

0
0

I can't see the problem

Plumbers & builders have been wearing this fashion trend for decades with no issues... apart from a few grimaces, a few smiles and one or two upchucks. Live and let live I say, we have enough problems with the real police without the fashion police getting in on the act as well.

2
0

Surely the solution is for all parents to start wearing their trousers low - being heinously unfashionable to dress like your Dad sartorial elegance would soon be restored.

14
0

Re: I still dont get it though

It's not about advertising anything, it stems from the practice of confiscating items such as belts and shoelaces from inmates. It's the 'just got out of lock-up' look, rather like the Adidas trainers with no laces look, as popularised by Run DMC.

The stupidest variant on this I have seen is yoofs with low slung kecks with a belt in. Clearly not getting the point of their own ridiculous 'look'.

1
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: I still dont get it though

They give you your belt back when you're released you know...

2
0
Silver badge

Only in America

The thing is, according to the US Presidential Toilet Paper Constitution, nobody is actually allowed to make a law like that, since it would be abridging free speech (1st amdt) and states are not allowed to ban anything the federal government isn't (9th and 10th amdts). Anti-sagging ordinances are actually unconstitutional.

As soon as some rich kid gets busted, the lawyers are going to have a field day.

0
1
Bronze badge

or at least certain judicial districts therefound

A J, it depends upon how general the law is. The nearest thing to sagging case law can be found in Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools (1995) in US district court. Not all conduct (e.g. sartorial choice) is considered speech in the 1st amendment sense; and even if sagging were protected speech in the 1st amendment, school dress codes could still constitutionally ban it. (I think that such an anti-sagging law would be extremely silly, but then I’m not a Wisconsin legislator.)

You seem to have misinterpreted the aims of the 9th and 10th amendments. Consider this example: firms that sell baked goods in Pennsylvania must be registered with (and licensed by) the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. (This is evidenced on packaging by the cryptic phrase “Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.”, even for baked goods sold outside of Pennsylvania.) The federal government does not have jurisdiction to ban unregistered, unlicensed bakeries in Pennsylvania; however, Pennsylvania does.

0
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Nice to see...

... El Reg letting us comment on Lester's articles which are of such world-shaking import...

0
4
Silver badge
Facepalm

Let 'em carry on and Darwin will sort them out! The dopey buggers can't walk up a flight of stairs or they'll trip over trying to run away from each other's gangs, most likely under a bus or train! Simple!

4
0
Anonymous Coward

I've seen a couple of these idiots try to jump on the train at the last minute, trip over their pants, and end up half in half out of the door on the floor. Worth a chuckle.

3
0
Bronze badge
Angel

We can only live in hope!

0
0

well out

this look hasn't actually been "in" for about 15 years anyway. the only idiots who dress like this (in the UK at any rate) are absolute chavs who still think Dr Dre's album "The Chronic" is the height of cool. i would imagine it's the same in the US...

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: well out

Yup, no self respecting bloke around the Brixton/Lambeth/Southwalk area I frequent would be seen with this way old look. Strictly a wiggas only look.

0
0
Silver badge

Remember when

Cast your mind back to your own salad days, o commentards. Can you honestly say that you never wore anything absurd, offensive or impractical?

I know that if I review my wardrobe between the ages of 15 and, er, 35, I suffer from extreme internal cringing.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Remember when

"Can you honestly say that you never wore anything absurd, offensive or impractical?"

Yes.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Yes

You must be a hoot.

0
1

Re: Remember when

"Can you honestly say that you never wore anything absurd, offensive or impractical?"

No.

0
0

I'm sure...

...the U.S. made similar outraged noises in the 1950's when leather jackets and greased hair became a thing...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Coming soon...

Jumper Pants!

(Upside down jumpers worn as pants)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Coming soon...

I don't even want to think about what will be hanging out the neck...

0
0
404
Bronze badge

Two Points

1. The folks who sag ALWAYS get caught by the cops - pants fall down as they as running. (Watch 'Cops', it's a riot -no pun intended)

2. Cured that with my boys by pantsing them in public - shame is underrated. Always told my kids they can do whatever they want, once they were out of the house and I wasn't paying the bills. Very fair, I think.

;)

2
0
Anonymous Coward

WRONG

People in public do NOT have the right to wear their pants around their knees exposing their arse and genitals. That's public indecency and prosecutable in virtually every civilized society. Only a dumbarse would suggest this is some kind of God given "right' and only a dumberarse would actually drop their pants like this in public. I think a cap up their arse would be a VERY good deterrent and I hope more people adopt this subtle means to encourage the scumbags to pull their pants up. No one should be forced to endure this abusive behavior of the dirtbags who think it's cool to flash their arses.

0
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.