[Chefelf]

Bill sets fine for low-riding pants
Wednesday, February 9, 2005 Posted: 10:04 AM EST (1504 GMT)

Showing undies could cost Virginians $50.

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt.

The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."

Del. Lionell Spruill Sr., a Democrat who opposed the bill, had pleaded with his colleagues to remember their own youthful fashion follies.

During an extended monologue Monday, he talked about how they dressed or wore their hair in their teens. On Tuesday, he said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement.

"This is a foolish bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt so many," Spruill said before the measure was approved 60-34. It now goes to the state Senate.

The bill's sponsor, Del. Algie T. Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear. He did not speak on the floor Tuesday.

Spruill and Howell, also a Democrat, are both black.

http://www.cnn.com/2...s.ap/index.html

It's going to be great when I have kids because I'm going to get to tell them about how when I was their age we used to be able to look like idiots if we wanted to.

Thanks to Jordan for this one!

[Jane Sherwood]

Does anyone else suddenly have "The Pants Up Song" stuck in their head?

Hike, hike, hike, hike your pants up...

[Chefelf]

Jane just sent me a link to the following article:

Droopy-Pants Bill Dropped in Virginia Senate
Lawmakers Embarassed By Publicity Over Proposed $50 Fine
Algie Howell, the bill's sponsor, said his constituents had pushed for the legislation.

RICHMOND, Va. (Feb. 11) - Virginia lawmakers dropped their droopy-pants bill Thursday after the whole thing became just too embarrassing.

The bill, which would have slapped a $50 fine on people who wear their pants so low that their underwear is visible in "a lewd or indecent manner,'' passed the state House on Tuesday but was killed by a Senate committee two days later in a unanimous vote.

Republican Sen. Thomas K. Norment said news reports implied that lawmakers were preoccupied with droopy pants.

"I find that an indignation, which dampens my humor,'' Norment said.

more...

Go to the link to the article above. You can vote on whether the bill is a good or bad idea. Remarkably the vote is currently at a dead tie 50% to 50%. This is out of 45,000+ votes.

[barend]

oh, man!!!

it's a stupid look!!! they should be fined...

i guess they'll have to just settle for being teased by me.

at least ban the mullet.

[Chefelf]

The thing is, I think it looks dumb but how is it indecent? What's the difference in your pants covering your crotch or your underwear. It's just a piece of fabric. Somehow knowing that that piece of fabric is called "underwear" is what these people seem to be afraid of.

[reiner]

As I've been informed by some friends who have done time, the drooping pants look is a sign of being someone's "girlfriend". *shakes head* Dunno how that trend got started for men not in prison.

[barend]

it's offensive because it was started by pepsi owned nu-metal rap buy addidas bands...

[Chyld]

I just do it because none of my belts actually work properly. I'm hardly out to create a moral outcry, or set anyones juices flowing. I'm quite sure its another attempt at hiding something. Maybe they're hiding the WMDs in Virginia...

[Jane Sherwood]

Maybe they're hiding the WMDs in Virginia...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are! They're hiding them in their pants! These people have pockets that would rival Guybrush Threepwood's!

Virginia lawmakers dropped their droopy-pants bill Thursday after the whole thing became just too embarrassing.

That's the best line in the whole article...

The whole point of sagging pants is beyond me. I'm one of those people who still wear their pants on their waste rather than below, which also makes buying pants rather tricky considering how low-cut everything is.

Can a person be pissed off from both angles and yet still be completely indifferent?

[Jordan]

It's just layed back slacker style. When I was a teenager I rode my pants low because it was considered 'dope'. It was the snow boarder look.

Showing the upper portion of your boxer shorts is not indicent. I swear, bills like this come into play because some grumpy old man dwells on something small and trivial since he has nothing better to do.

[Jane Sherwood]

What about the guys that wear them so low that their entire ass is hanging out?

[Jordan]

Barring plumbers, I've never seen that in my life. HOWEVER, I've witnessed the upper portion of a women's butt, with a G-String riding high. I dont' mind that though.

[Jane Sherwood]

I'd figure you wouldn't.

[Emu]

What about the guys that wear them so low that their entire ass is hanging out?

(Jane)
Well they're just asking to be pantsed.

In fact, if random pantsings were used to enforce this bill instead of fines, then this perilous quandary would eventually solve itself.

[Slade]

That would be a much cooler solution than passing a bloody law saying how to wear pants. Mine tend to droop since I lost 15 pounds over the summer but never bothered to get new ones. They stay on my waist, but my boxers sometimes show if I lift up my t-shirt.

We shouldn't pass laws for these things, just put societal pressures on people. Like if you have a mullet, you're going to be laughed at because you look stupid. So if you actually think it's a good haircut, you'll get cut down and shamed into changing it, unless you don't care. Prey on social anxiety, not wallets.